J.J  IJJf'V-.VJt 


^o,V.l|f!OAi 


^^4    

APPLIED   SOCIALISM 

A  STUDY  OF  THE  APPLI- 
CATION OF  SOCIALISTIC 
PRINCIPLES  TO  THE  STATE 


BY 

JOHN    SPARGO 


NEW  YORK 
B.  W.  HUEBSCH 

1912 


Copyright  1912,  by 
B.  W.  HUEBSCH 


rRlNTEO  IN  V.  S.  A. 


^73 


TO 

MORRIS  HILLQUIT 

WITH   ADMIRATION   FOR  THE  WISDOM,   COURAGE, 

LOYALTY    AND    ZEAL    WITH    WHICH     HE    SERVES    THE 

SOCIALIST  CAUSE,  AND  GRATITUDE   FOR   HIS 

UNFAILING  FRIENDSHIP 
THIS  BOOK  IS  AFFECTIONATELY   DEDICATED 


PREFACE 

DURING  the  winter  of  1 908-1909,  by  in- 
vitation of  my  Colleagues  of  the  Board 
of  Directors  of  the  Rand  School  of  So- 
cial Science,  New  York  City,  I  delivered  two 
courses  of  lectures  to  a  large  number  of  students 
in  that  institution.  The  first  course  consisted  of 
twelve  lectures  devoted  to  an  exposition  of  the  ele- 
ments of  Socialism  and  covered  substantially  the 
same  ground  as  that  covered  by  my  Socialism,  a 
Summary  and  Interpretation  of  Socialist  Principles. 
The  second  course  consisted  of  fourteen  lectures,* 
the  substance  of  which  is  reproduced  in  the  follow- 
ing pages,  largely  in  response  to  the  earnest  solici- 
tation of  many  of  the  students  who  attended  the 
course. 

When  my  colleagues  asked  me  to  deliver  this 
course  of  lectures  on  Applied  Socialism,  they  under- 
stood that  I  would  not  undertake  to  build  a  new 
Utopia,  to  invent  a  perfect  social  system,  or,  as 
Marx  would  scornfully  say,  to  "  write  the  kitchen 
recipes    of   the    future."     In    part    at   least,    the 

1  As  planned  the  course  was  to  consist  of  sixteen  lectures,  but 
illness  compelled  the  omission  of  two  of  them,  hence  the  dis- 
crepancy between  this   statement  and  the  printed  syllabus. 

vii 


viii  Preface 

avowed  purpose  of  the  lectures  was  to  make  the 
futility  of  such  Utopia-designing  clear,  and  to  em- 
phasize the  importance  of  the  evolutionary  method 
of  Marxian  Socialism. 

But  my  colleagues  in  suggesting  the  subject  had 
in  mind  a  larger  purpose  also.  Recognizing  the 
fact  that  there  are  certain  principles  which  are 
essential  to  a  Socialist  society,  and  the  fact  that 
there  are  discernible  tendencies  of  social  and  eco- 
nomic evolution  which  Socialists  universally  regard 
as  evidences  of  the  evolution  of  society  toward  So- 
cialism, they  felt  that  It  was  possible  to  correlate 
the  principles  of  Socialism  and  the  Socialist  esti- 
mate of  economic  and  social  tendencies  Into  a  help- 
ful and  suggestive  outline  of  the  Socialist  society 
of  the  future,  without  departure  from  the  method 
of  science,  or  wandering  into  the  Elysian  Fields  of 
Utopia. 

Granted  this  possibility,  such  an  outline  has 
many  advantages.  A  very  large  proportion  of  the 
anti-Socialist  arguments  are  directed  against  Uto- 
pian schemes  like  those  of  More,  Owen,  Fourier 
and  Bellamy,  on  the  one  hand,  or,  on  the  other 
hand,  against  concepts  of  the  future  society  which 
the  opponents  of  Socialism  put  forward  as  con- 
crete Illustrations  of  the  practical  outcome  of  the 
principles  of  Socialism.  That  no  Socialist  whose 
word  is  entitled  to  the  slightest  consideration  ac- 
cepts either  the  schemes  of  the  old  Utopists  or  the 


Preface  ix 

fantasies  imagined  by  the  critics  of  Socialism  as 
Illustrations  of  the  Socialist  ideal,  or  of  what  is 
implied  by  the  Socialist  philosophy,  does  not  trou- 
ble the  average  opponent  of  Socialism,  especially 
those  who  have  found  it  a  profitable  occupation  to 
oppose  and  misrepresent  Socialism  and  the  Socialist 
movement.  Such  attacks  are  best  met,  not  by 
mere  denial,  but  by  the  frankest  and  fullest  state- 
ment that  can  be  made  of  what  we  believe  the  main 
features  of  the  Socialist  society  must  be. 

Then,  too,  there  are  many  earnest  and  sincere 
persons,  now  lingering  In  the  Valley  of  Indecision, 
who  might  become  active  participants  In  the  So- 
cialist movement  as  a  result  of  the  attempt  to 
make  such  a  statement.  There  are  many  such 
persons  who  agree  fully  with  the  Socialist  Indict- 
ment of  existing  society,  and  with  the  philosophical 
and  economic  theories  of  Socialism,  who  do  not 
identify  themselves  with  the  Socialist  movement 
because  they  are  troubled  by  such  practical  difficul- 
ties as  the  question  of  incentive,  the  equal  reward 
of  efficient  and  Inefficient  labor,  the  preservation  of 
the  family,  and  the  like.  The  frank  discussion 
of  such  problems  as  these  In  connection  with  the 
attempt  to  forecast  the  main  outlines  of  their  prob- 
able solution  ought  to  prove  exceedingly  helpful 
to  all  such  persons. 

There  are  many  Socialists  to  whom  such  a  study 
must  give  a  deeper  insight  into  the  great  move- 


X  Preface 

ment  to  which  they  belong.     Socialism  gathers  its 
strength  to  a  considerable  extent  by  means  of  a 
popular  propaganda  which  is  of  necessity  limited 
to    generalizations.     The    first    thing    which    the 
average  recruit  to  the  Socialist  ranks  does  is  to 
begin  propaganda  work  among  his  acquaintances. 
In  every  country,  therefore,  the  organized  Social- 
ist movement  supplements  its  propaganda  by  edu- 
cational work,  especially  by  promoting  the  careful 
study  of  those  practical  and  theoretical  problems 
which  have  to  be  encountered  in  the  intellectual 
battle   for   Socialism.     Quite   irrespective   of   the 
conclusions  reached,  the  mere  fact  of  considering 
candidly  the  problems  dealt  with  in  the  present 
study  must  have  a  salutary  effect  and  tend  to  stimu- 
late that  spirit  of  investigation  which  Is  the  best 
antidote  for  impotent  Intellectual  superficiality  and 
crude  dogmatism. 

How  far  I  have  succeeded  In  meeting  the  obli- 
gation imposed  upon  me  by  my  colleagues  Is  not  for 
me  to  judge.  I  can  only  say  that  It  gave  me  great 
pleasure  to  meet  so  many  earnest  and  thoughtful 

4  men  and  women,  week  after  week,  and  to  discuss 
with  them  as  a  comrade  and  fellow  student,  rather 
than  as  a  teacher,  problems  of  such  surpassing  In- 
terest to  every  Socialist.  For  the  generous  appre- 
ciation shown  by  my  class  I  shall  always  be 
grateful,  and  I  trust  that  those  who  listened  to  the 
lectures  and  discussed  them  were  benefited  to  the 


Preface  xi 

same  extent  as  the  lecturer.  The  question  period 
after  each  lecture  was  at  least  of  as  much  benefit 
to  me  as  to  any  of  those  who  were  for  the  time 
being  my  students.  Thus  our  work  together  vvas 
of  mutual  advantage,  as  befits  all  work  for  So- 
cialism. 

It  is  perhaps  a  duty  I  owe  the  reader  to  warn 
him  that,  although  the  substance  of  the  following 
pages  was  delivered  as  a  series  of  lectures  in  con- 
nection with  the  regular  work  of  the  Rand  School 
of  Social  Science,  neither  that  institution  nor  the 
men  who  were  my  colleagues  upon  the  Board  of 
Directors  of  that  institution  are  to  be  held  respon- 
sible for  any  of  the  views  expressed.  My  col- 
leagues knew  that  there  could  be  no  "  authorita- 
tive "  statement  of  the  nature  of  the  Socialist 
State  and  the  manner  in  which  it  will  deal  with  the 
various  questions  discussed.  Their  invitation  to 
me  to  deliver  the  lectures  meant  no  more  than  that 
they  invited  one  Socialist  who  they  believed  had 
earned  a  right  to  such  an  audience  to  express  his 
views  upon  certain  subjects  of  interest  and  im- 
portance in  the  presence  of  his  comrades.  While 
I  believe  that  the  views  that  I  have  set  forth  in 
these  pages  are  in  accord  with  the  fundamental 
principles  of  Marxian  Socialism,  and  coincide,  in 
the  main,  with  the  views  of  all  the  most  authorita- 
tive spokesmen  of  the  international  Socialist  move- 
ment, I  must  assume  personal  responsibility  for 


xii  Preface 

them.  The  reader  must  not  hold  the  movement 
responsible.  He  is  simply  a  listener  to  one  Social- 
ist "  thinking  aloud." 

My  thanks  are  due  to  my  good  friend,  Mr.  W. 
J.  Ghent,  formerly  secretary  of  the  Rand  School, 
for  many  friendly  services  and  suggestions. 

John  Spargo. 
"  Nestledown," 

Old  Bennington,  Vt. 

End  of  November,  191 1. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

PAGE 

Introduction 17-36 

The  term  "  Applied  Socialism "  suggested  by  the  more 
familiar  term,  "  Applied  Sociology " —  Getietic  and  telic 
factors  in  social  evolution  —  Directive  faculties  of  the  hu- 
man mind  rooted  in  material  conditions  —  Reasons  for  the 
failure  of  all  Utopian  speculations  —  Interplay  of  genetic 
and  telic  forces  —  The  "inevitability"  of  Socialism — Ap- 
plied Socialism  defined  —  A  certain  forecast  or  picture  of 
the  Socialist  State  necessary  —  How  far  can  we  picture  the 
future  without  falling  into  the  evils  of  Utopianism?  —  A 
scientific  forecast  both  possible  and  necessary  —  Kautsky[s 
view  —  The  essence  of  Utopianism  —  Its  dangers  —  Limi- 
tations of  our  forecast  —  The  term  "Socialist  State" — The 
Socialist  State  must  be  a  development  rather  than  a  de- 
parture—  Liebknecht's  view  —  The  conflict  between  "Revo- 
lutionists "  and  "  Opportunists  " —  Marx's  occasional  lapses 
into  Utopian  thought  versus  his  philosophy  and  general 
practice  —  The  Mutation  Theory  and  its  application  to  so- 
ciety—  Instances  of  sudden  historical  transformations  — 
The  evolutionary  basis  of  Socialism  versus  the  concept  of 
Social  Revolution  —  Is  the  Social  Revolution  a  method  or  a 
result?  —  What  Marx  meant  by  "  Social  Revolution  " — 
There  is  no  abolition  of  Social  institutions  in  any  absolute 
sense  —  The  Capitalist  State  assuming  new  and  extensive 
social  functions  —  The  structural  framework  of  the  So- 
cialist State  now  being  developed  —  Mere  public  ownership 
is  not  Socialism  —  Capitalism  is  not  introducing  Socialism, 
but  bringing  about  changes  which  make  the  necessary 
structure  of  the  Socialist  State. 


xiv  Contents 


CHAPTER  II 

PAGE 

Socialism  and  the  State 37-60 

Futility  of  attempting  to  sketch  by  a  priori  speculation 
the  probable  course  of  the  development  of  the  State  —  The 
place  of  imagination  —  The  welding  of  fact  and  imagina- 
tion essential  to  scientific  method  —  Ideas  of  the  origin  of 
the  State  in  the  Theocracy  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  and  the 
Social  Contract  theory  —  The  Great  Man  theory  a  modifi- 
cation of  the  Theocratic  idea  —  In  turn,  the  Social  Con- 
tract theory  is  a  modification  of  the  Great  Man  theory  — 
Importance  of  the  Social  Contract  theory  to  the  Socialist 
—  The  "Law  of  Nature" — Origin  of  the  State  in  the  sub- 
jugation of  one  people  by  another  —  Origin  of  government 
in  the  family  —  Lewis  H.  Morgan  and  his  influence  upon 
Marx  and  Engels  —  Morgan's  theory  of  the  origin  of  the 
family  —  Development  of  private  property  and  of  govern- 
ment—  Class  character  of  the  State  —  Will  the  State  be 
abolished  or  die  out?  —  Sayings  of  Engels  and  Bebel  — 
Too  narrow  concept  of  the  State  —  Functions  of  the  State 
not  merely  coercive  —  Transformation  of  the  State  through 
enlargement  of  its  functions  —  Herbert  Spencer  on  enlarge- 
ment of  State  functions  —  The  modern  State  being  impreg- 
nated with  the  social  spirit  —  Mr.  Martin  on  the  commu- 
nistic accomplishments  of  the  United  States  government  — 
Development  by  the  State  of  new  organs  to  meet  its  new 
needs  —  The  State  is  not  decaying,  but  developing  social 
characteristics  —  Its  special  function  as  an  agency  of  class 
rule  alone  dying  out  —  Permanence  of  the  State. 


CHAPTER  III 

The  Socialist  State 61-86 

Liebknecht's  view  of  the  controversy  over  the  State-— 
Objections  of  the  ultra-Marxists  and  the  Utopian  Syndi- 
calists—  Socialism  presupposes  the  continuance  of  the 
State  —  The  age  of  transition  —  Some  definitions  of  So- 
cialism—  Proudhon's  —  Adolph  Held's  —  Dictionary  of 
the  Academie  Franqaise  —  Littre's  —  Leroux's  —  Professor 
Flint's  — Hyndman's  —  Bradlaugh's  —  John  Stuart  Mill's 
—  Definition  of  the  English  Social  Democratic  Federation 
and  its  defects — Essentials  of  a  good  definition  of  Social- 
ism—  Socialism    defined  —  Limitations    of    the    definition  — 


Contents  XV 

PAGE 

Socialism  and  democracy  —  The  question  of  monarchical 
or   republican   government  —  Malon's   view  —  Bebel's   view 

—  An  English  attitude  —  Labriola's  view  —  How  deter- 
mine the  extent  to  which  property  will  remain  in  private 
hands  —  The  end  and  aim  of  Socialism  —  Engels  and  his 
statement  of  the  law  of  Social  evolution —  Socialization  to 
prevent  exploitation  the  primary  aim  of  Socialism  —  The 
Communist  Manifesto  on  private  property  —  Views  of 
other  writers  —  The  "wedlock  of  property  and  labor" — 
The  categories  of  personal  property  and  enterprise  and  of 
social  property  and  enterprise  —  Futility  of  the  attempt  to 
determine  the  individual's  share  in  social  production  — 
Wages  —  Adam  Smith  on  the  antagonism  of  class  interests 

—  The  Socialist  movement  is  a  phase  of  the  class  strug- 
gle—  No  need  to  contemplate  socialization  of  ownership 
of  essentially  individualistic  property. 


CHAPTER  IV 

Property  and  the  State 87-106 

Proudhon's  definition  of  property  —  His  lack  of  original- 
ity—  Brissot  de  Warville  —  The  views  of  the  early  Chris- 
tian Fathers  —  The  "right  to  use  and  abuse" — Limitations 
of  the  right  to  use  —  Prof.  Holland's  definition  of  property 
—  Essence  of  property  rights  —  The  right  of  property  a 
creation  of  the  State  —  Property  and  "right" — The  will 
of  the  State  as  the  basis  of  legal  right  —  Fluidity  of  the 
State  —  No  constant  and  invariable  right  to  property  — 
There  is  no  absolute  right  to  property  —  We  cannot  con- 
ceive of  property  except  as  a  social  institution  —  Examples 
of  the  ultimate  ownership  of  the  State  —  Confiscation  — 
Taxation  as  a  form  of  confiscation  —  The  essence  of  prop- 
erty is  the  goodwill  of  the  community  —  Critiques  of  So- 
cialism which  ignore  the  confiscatory  process  with  which 
we  are  familiar  —  The  right  to  one's  person  subject  to  the 
superior  will  of  the  State  —  With  the  democratization  of 
the  State  property  likewise  becomes  democratized  —  The 
twin  principles  of  modern  Socialism. 


CHAPTER  V 

Property  and  Industry  Under  Socialism     ....     107-138 
Nothing  in  the  Socialist  programme  to  justify  belief  that 


xvi  Contents 

PAGE 

private  property  would  be  incompatible  with  Socialist 
regime  —  Admission  of  this  by  critics  —  The  Utopian  view 

—  Rise  of  the  modern  Socialist  school  of  thought  —  The 
Communist  Manifesto  on  property  —  Kautsky  on  the  pri- 
vate ownership  of  non-productive  wealth  —  Private  prop- 
erty would  not  be  destroyed,  even  if  Socialism  involved 
suppression  of  private  industrial  enterprise  —  The  remuner- 
ation of  labor  by  certificates  or  checks  based  on  time  units 

—  Equality  of  income  and  its  necessary  results  —  Social- 
ism does  not  involve  equality  of  remuneration  regardless 
of  the  quality  of  service  performed  —  Possibility  of  in- 
equality of  wealth  under  Socialism  —  Inheritance  —  Some 
axiomatic  propositions  —  Industrial  organization  of  the 
Socialist  State  —  Inclusion  of  production  by  individuals 
and  voluntary  groups  —  The  two  principal  economic  argu- 
ments  for    Socialization  —  The   elimination    of    exploitation 

—  The  elimination  of  waste  —  The  prime  urge  of  the 
movement  —  Great  organizations  like  the  Steel  Trust  repre- 
sent progress  made  toward  Socialism  through  one  channel 

—  Regulation  measures  —  Forms  of  economic  enterprise  in 
the  Socialist  State  —  Economic  activities  which  require  a 
national  organization  —  Forms  best  dealt  with  by  the 
smaller  units  of  government  —  Inheritance  by  the  Socialist 
State  of  the  economic  organization  of  the  capitalist  system 

—  Centralized  bureaucracy  not  an  essential  condition  of 
Socialism  —  View  of  Bebel,  Menger  and  Hillquit  —  As- 
sumption by  the  State  of  the  functions  now  performed  by 
the  capitalist  class  —  Relations  of  the  State  to  the  individ- 
ual worker  not  those  now  existing  between  employer  and 
employe  —  Organization  of  this  relationship  —  Attempts  of 
Socialist  writers  to  forecast  solution  of  this  problem  —  The 
idealization  of  the  expert  —  Gronlund's  view  —  Why  this 
view  is  unsocialistic  —  Other  views  —  Mrs.  Besant's  criti- 
cism—  Essential  conditions  of  a  sound  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem—  Socialism  will   develop   the  forms   which  it   inherits 

—  The  organization  of  the  industrial  affairs  of  the  Social- 
ist State  upon  the  dual  basis  of  common  civic  rights  and 
special  interests  of  workers  —  Functions  of  the  labor  unions 

—  Their  probable  development  —  Regulation  of  relations 
between  voluntary  industrial  enterprise  and  the  Socialist 
State  —  Fears  of  a  conflict  —  The  Socialist  State  could  im- 
pose no  condition  for  the  regulation  of  voluntary  industrial 
enterprise  of  which  the  majority  of  the  citizens  did  not  ap- 
prove—  Ease  with  which  abuses  could  be  remedied  —  An 
illustration  —  The  State  as  producer  sets  the  standards  for, 


Contents  xvii 

PAGE 

and  regulates,  private  industrial  enterprises  rather  than  as 
a  coercive  agent. 

CHAPTER  VI 

Personal  Liberty  in  the  Socialist  State    ....     138-162 

The  fear  that  Socialism  must  lead  to  an  increase  in  the 
coercive  functions  of  the  State  —  Assumptions  on  which  it 
is  based  —  Professor  Goldwin  Smith  —  Eugen  Richter's 
caricature  —  Spencer's  denunciation  of  State  despotism  — 
How  the  central  principle  of  Socialism  is  overlooked  by  its 
critics  —  A  vast  amount  of  private  property  and  industrial 
enterprise  compatible  with  the  Socialist  ideal  —  The  ob- 
jective of  the  Socialist  movement  —  Doubt  whether  the  at- 
tainment of  the  Socialist  ideal  would  involve  extension  of 
bureaucracy  —  Capitalism  involves  a  vast  amount  of  re- 
strictive legislation  —  Increasing  tendency  of  all  great  na- 
tions toward  bureaucracy  —  The  modern  State,  in  self-pro- 
tection, obliged  to  undertake  regulation  and  inspection  — 
Regulation  of  capitalism  involves  oppressive  and  humili- 
ating interference  with  the  individual  by  the  State  —  Bu- 
reaucracy a  present  evil  —  The  regulation  of  railroads  — 
Some  definitions  of  liberty  —  Two  principles  essential  to  a 
rational  conception  of  liberty  —  Liberty  only  intelligible  as 
relating  to  some  particular  phase  of  life  —  Liberty  relative 
and  not  absolute  —  Various  forms  of  restraint  —  Freedom 
of  the  will  —  The  Anarchist  ideal  of  absolute  liberty  — 
Conflict  between  Anarchism  and  Socialism  —  Socialists 
claim  that  social  supremacy  extends  individual  liberty  — 
Anarchists  abandon  the  ideal  of  absolute  personal   liberty 

—  Absence  of  government  does  not  mean  freedom  —  Free- 
dom of  assembly  and  speech  protected  by  government  but 
menaced  by  mobs  —  Discussion  with  an  Anarchist  —  Essen- 
tial differences  of  Anarchism  and  Socialism  —  Law  in 
democracies  —  The  restraint  of  custom  —  No  promise  of 
absolute  personal  liberty  in  the  Socialist  State  —  Man's 
dual  nature  —  The  greatest  tyranny  not  political  or  legal 
but  economic  —  Spencer  on  the  "liberty"  of  the  laborer  — 
Increase  of  social  control  over  the  economic  forces  of  life 
coincident  with  a  decrease  of  sumptuary  legislation  — 
Class  conflict  involves  State  interference  with  the  individ- 
ual—  How  modern  governments  are  forced  to  bureaucracy 

—  Assurance  that  the  Socialist  State  will  not  develop  new 
forms  of  oppression  of  the  individual  —  The  repression  of 


xviii  Contents 

PAGE 

initiative  on  lower  planes  forces  initiative  upon  higher 
planes  —  Examples  of  this  —  Liberty  may  continue  to  grow 
through  self-imposed  compulsions  —  Mill's  ideal  of  liberty 
attainable  only  through  Socialism. 


CHAPTER  VII 
Labor  and  Its  Remuneration 163-201 


Comic  element  in  the  fear  that  the  State  will  attempt  to 
assign  each  individual  his  or  her  task  —  The  fundamental 
natural  incentive  to  labor  —  Operation  of  this  incentive  in 
a  society  freed  from  exploitation  of  class  by  class  —  Nor- 
mally this  natural  incentive  sufficient  without  pressure  by 
the  State  —  Where  it  proved  ineffective  action  by  the  State 
would  follow  —  The  Socialist  State  must  guarantee  the 
right  to  labor  and  impose  the  duty  to  labor  upon  all 
competent  citizens  —  Those  who  are  to  be  considered  in- 
competent—  Maintenance  of  these  incompetents  out  of  the 
common  funds  —  Beginnings  of  such  a  system  visible  within 
the  existing  order  —  Absorption  of  the  unemployed  would 
mean  larger  leisure  for  all  and  overwork  for  none  while 
increasing  the  total  volume  of  production  —  Tremendous 
social  gains  to  be  derived  from  diverting  to  production  the 
non-productive  labor  of  to-day — Freedom  of  the  individ- 
ual to  choose  his  occupation,  subject  only  to  supply  and 
demand  —  The  idea  of  the  State  regimentation  of  labor 
opposed  to  the  fundamental  principle  of  Socialism  —  Who 
will  do  the  dirty,  dangerous  and  disagreeable  work?  — 
Much  of  these  kinds  of  work  not  necessary  —  Some  exam- 
ples—  Elimination  of  the  unnecessary  work  of  this  kind 
—  Repression  of  initiative  on  lower  planes  to  force  initia- 
tive upon  higher  planes  —  Machines  can  be  used  to  do 
much  of  the  dangerous  and  disagreeable  work  now  done  by 
human  beings  —  Capitalist  society  does  not  provide  invent- 
ive genius  with  effective  incentive  to  do  away  with  drudg- 
ery and  dangerous  labor — "Cheap  labor" — Why  all 
social  efforts  to  conserve  life  are  resisted  by  the  capitalist 
exploiters  —  The  State,  not  the  capitalist,  has  had  to  under- 
take all  measures  for  the  conservation  of  human  life  — 
Every  conceivable  incentive  would  operate  to  force  the 
Socialist  State  in  this  direction  —  The  Socialist  State  could 
offer  honors  and  rewards  to  stimulate  inventive  genius 
until  the  most  repulsive  occupation  was  made  pleasant  — 


Contents  x'lX 

PAGB 

What  it  might  do  to  remove  the  drudgery  of  housework 

—  Under  the  best  conditions,  however,  some  tasks  must  be 
less  agreeable  and  attractive  than  others  —  How  will  the 
State  meet  this?  —  Natural  inequality  of  talent  a  factor  — 
Automatic  adjustment  of  talent  and  task  —  Diversity  of 
talent  —  Power  of  the  State  to  select  by  competitive  tests  — 
The  question  of  equal  rewards  for  unequal  tasks  —  Social- 
ism does  not  involve  equal   payment  for   unequal   service 

—  By  increasing  pay  or  reducing  the  hours  of  labor  the 
State  could  make  disagreeable  occupations  attractive  — 
The  fear  of  equality  of  intellectual  development  —  With 
the  possible  exception  of  a  few  forms  of  rough  unskilled 
labor,  all  occupations  can  be  made  equally  attractive  to 
men  of  equal  but  diverse  talents  —  Ability  of  the  Socialist 
State  to  bring  about  the  scientific  organization  of  labor. 


The  communistic  principle  of  equal  payments  for  unequal 
service  never  a   recognized   principle  of  modern   Socialism 

—  Relation  of  the  Socialist  to  the  Communist  —  Equal  re- 
muneration cannot  be  assailed  upon  the  basis  of  pure 
reason  and  justice  —  Is  the  sewer  cleaner  less  valuable 
than  the  inventor?  —  The  question  of  equal  opportunity  — 
Family  life  as  a  microcosm  of  the  ideal  Social  State  —  The 
communistic  principle  prevails  in  the  family  —  The  theory 
that  Socialism  will  give  to  each  worker  the  value  of  his 
labor  product  —  Why  this  is  pure  individualism  —  Why  it 
is  impossible  —  Marx  upon  the  subject  of  the  remuneration 
of  labor  under  Socialism  —  Attempts  to  refute  Marxian  So- 
cialism by  demonstrating  the  impossibility  of  giving  to 
each  worker  the  value  of  his  own  labor-product  —  Relation 
of  Marx's  theory  of  value  to  this  subject  —  The  theory  of 
value  has  no  bearing  upon  the  subject  of  the  remuneration 
of  labor  in  the  Socialist  State  —  The  theory  stated  —  The 
exclusive  application  of  the  theory  to  capitalist  production 

—  The  measure  of  the  value  of  commodities  by  the  time 
spent  in  their  production  not  involved  by  the  theory  — 
Marx  on  "  labor  certificates  "  as  a  method  of  remunerating 
labor  —  Marx's  scheme  of  distribution  communistic  — 
How  Marx  lapsed  into  Utopianism  —  Correct  method  of 
approaching  this  question  —  The  methods  of  remunerating 
labor  in  the  Socialist  State  must  have  as  their  starting 
point  the  methods  developed  by  capitalist  society — From 
that  point  they  may  develop  to  the  extreme  of  free  Com- 
munism, but  with  that  we  are  not  now  concerned  —  The 
Socialist  State  will   inherit  the  method   of   paying  wages. 


XX  Contents 

rxGc 
unequal  in  amount  —  Possibility  of  retention  of  this  method 
for  a  long  time  —  What  of  the  old  cry  "abolition  of  the 
wage  system  "  then  ?  —  What  is  meant  by  the  abolition  of 
the  wage  system?  —  What  is  aimed  at  is  not  the  abolition 
of  the  form  of  wage  payment,  but  the  social  relation  at 
present  expressed  through  that  form  —  What  wages  mean 
to-day  —  What  wages  would  mean  under  Socialism  — 
Why  the  Socialist  State  would  be  content  to  socialize 
wages  and  not  trouble  to  abolish  the  name  —  Degree  to 
which  inequality  of  remuneration  is  compatible  with  So- 
cialist principles  —  Present  glaring  inequality  could  not  be 
continued  —  Tendency  toward  approximate  equality  of  in- 
come—  This  need  not  be  brought  about  by  legislative 
enactment  —  Equality  of  opportunity  and  the  gradual  auto- 
matic equalization  of  remuneration  —  Standardization  of 
salaries  may  prove  a  step  toward  solution  «f  problem  — 
The  law  of  supply  and  demand  under  Socialism  —  The 
medium  of  distribution  —  Hostility  to  money  in  Socialist 
literature  —  Babeuf,  Owen,  Rodbertus,  Bellamy  and  Kelly 
cited  —  The  reason  for  the  hostility  of  the  Utopian  Social- 
ists to  money  —  Collective  ownership  and  democratic  con- 
trol of  production  and  exchange  do  not  necessitate  the  abo- 
lition of  money  —  Engels  quoted  —  How  the  Socialist  State 
might  prevent  private  usury  —  Kautsky's  view  entirely 
consistent  —  The  Socialist  State  may  outgrow  money,  but  it 
will  not  abolish  it  —  Money  becomes  really  token  money. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
Incentive  Under  Socialism    .     .     .     .-    t    t    v    t    202-^36 


Prophecies  that  Socialism  will  only  permit  "  a  common 
level  of  achievement "  and  that  production  will  be  lessened 
—  The  question  in  its  simpler  aspects  —  The  assumptions 
upon  which  the  criticism  rests  —  The  argument  stated  by 
Mr.  John  Rae  —  The  argument  valid  only  against  Com- 
munism, even  if  its  contention  is  admitted  —  Nothing  in  the 
essential  principle  of  Socialism  to  preclude  the  payment  of 
special  rewards  for  special  service,  the  establishing  of 
minimum  standards  of  efficiency,  or  the  imposition  of  pen- 
alties for  failure  to  attain  the  required  standards  —  No 
form  of  incentive  known  to  man  of  which  the  Socialist 
State  may  not  avail  itself  —  The  alleged  limitations  of 
"  human   nature  "   and   Communism  —  What  the  opponents 


Contents  xxi 

PAGE 

of  Socialism  mean  by  "human  nature' — The  Socialist  re- 
gards human  nature  from  the  evolutionary  point  of  view 

—  The  question  of  selfishness  —  Necessary  conditions  for 
the  general  adoption  of  Communism  would  require  the  de- 
velopment of  the  capacity  for  Communism  by  human 
nature  —  The  lessening  of  efficient  incentive  —  Premise 
upon  which  the  fear  of  this  is  based  —  Even  if  collective 
production  for  collective  needs  will  not  call  forth  the  maxi- 
mum of  individual  production  for  the  direct  benefit  of  the 
individual,  the  criticism  is  not  sound  —  Only  a  very  small 
part  of  the  production  of  civilized  nations  now  carried  on 
by  individuals  for  their  own  benefit  —  Argument  of  John 
Stuart  Mill  —  Where  the  criticism  applies  to  capitalist 
society  rather  than  to  Socialism  —  Lack  of  incentive  a  pres- 
ent condition  of   wage   labor  —  Adam  Smith  on  this  point 

—  Profit  sharing  schemes  are  intended  to  supply  the  de- 
ficiency of  incentive  —  Professor  Oilman's  admission  that 
the  wage  system  does  not  supply  the  worker  with  adequate 
incentive  to  do  his  best  —  Illogicality  of  Mr.  Andrew  Car- 
negie—  No  attempt  is  made  to  explain  why  the  logical 
development  of  profit-sharing  to  the  extent  of  making  the 
producers  equal  partners  in  production  and  distribution 
should  destroy  incentive  —  Sloth  and  indifference  of  day 
laborers  contrasted  with  diligence  and  interest  of  workers 
in  cooperative  workshops  —  Vigilance  of  superintendence 
under  the  present  system  —  Superintendence  the  function  of 
a  salaried  class  —  The  Socialist  State  could  avail  itself 
of  this  force  —  Conduct  of  workers  in  private  and  public 
employment  contrasted  —  Some  overlooked  points  —  The 
question  of  quality  —  Success  of  "direct  employment" 
policy  —  The  Panama  Canal  as  an  illustration  —  How  the 
self-interest  of  the  laborer,  destroyed  by  capitalist  produc- 
tion, reappears  in  a  new  form  in  cooperative  production. 


The  alleged  necessity  for  a  repression  of  individuality 
and  initiative  —  The  basis  of  the  criticism  —  An  examina- 
tion of  the  overvaluation  of  material  gain  as  an  incentive 
—  Is  greed  the  chief  inspiration  of  progress?  —  Material 
gain  as  an  incentive  reaches  its  maximum  in  capitalist 
society  —  But  even  under  capitalism  material  gain  is  not 
the  most  effective  incentive  —  Even  the  man  of  business 
urged  on  by  some  other  passion  than  the  desire  to  obtain 
more  surplus  wealth  —  Public  esteem  valued  more  than 
mere  money  —  The  passion  for  material  gain  most  effective 
aa  an  incentive  to  evil  —  Some  of  the  evils  due  to  it  — 


xxii  Contents 

PAGE 

Society  and  the  repression  of  the  incentive  of  gain  in  these 
manifestations  —  The  desire  for  material  gain  not  an  ef- 
fective incentive  to  great  achievements  in  art,  science,  in- 
vention or  statesmanship  —  The  passion  for  self-expression 
supreme  —  Inequalities  of  opportunity  destructive  of  human 
genius  —  Artists  and  poets  see  that  individualism  flourishes 
best  in  a  communism  of  opportunity  —  The  lesson  of 
Athens  —  The  highest  art  of  the  past  had  a  social  inspira- 
tion—  Socialism  will  not  of  necessity  give  the  artist  an 
easy  road  to  glory  —  Perils  and  difficulties  may  still  attend 
the  genius  who  strikes  out  new  paths  —  But  at  least  it  will 
be  possible  to  earn  a  living  by  labor  which  will  leave 
leisure  and  strength  for  art  —  The  hope  of  art  lies  in 
democracy  —  The  equalization  of  material  and  cultural 
advantages  —  How  this  will  develop  the  folk-love  of 
beauty  and  cause  revolt  against  ugliness  in  life  and  labor 

—  The  resulting  social  demand  for  beauty  will  encourage 
art  —  The  art-instinct  of  the  masses  —  What  we  may 
safely  predict  concerning  art  under  Socialism  —  Already 
the  most  significant  art  is  produced  in  the  collective  service 

—  The  inventor  under  Socialism  —  Tendencies  in  modern 
society  which  indicate  the  growing  capacity  of  society  to 
provide  opportunity  and  stimulus  for  the  inventor  —  The 
inventor  dependent  upon  society  —  Even  the  inventions 
which  most  manifest  individual  genius  cannot  be  regarded 
as  individual  productions  —  Their  social  nature  —  Spon- 
taneous and  unorganized  individual  inventiveness  has  al- 
ready proven  inadequate  —  How  collective  invention  and 
research  are  developing  —  What  the  Socialist  State  could 
do  to  further  this  process  —  The  present  State  has  already 
entered  this  field  of  effort  with  success  —  The  social  or- 
ganization of  inventive  ability  and  genius  is  not  a  dream 
of  Utopia  —  It  is  already  a  definite  possibility  well  rooted 
in  the  actual  life  of  the  present. 


CHAPTER  IX 
Socialism  and  the   Family    .     .  237-274 


Frequency  of  the  charge  that  Socialism  aims  at  the  de- 
struction of  monogamous  marriage  and  family  life  —  The 
charge  is  most  frequently  made  by  the  clerg\-  of  a  great 
church  which  has  been  a  conspicuous  victim  of  the  same 
ugly  charge  —  The   Catholic   Church   itself   not   responsible 


Contents  xxiii 

PAGE 

for  this  —  Her  neutral  position  —  Many  of  her  priests 
seem  to  have  forgotten  how  their  own  Church  has  been 
made  the  victim  of  the  same  charge  —  A  suggestive  foot- 
note—  It  is  a  significant  and  remarkable  fact  that  the 
charge  of  hostility  to  monogamic  marriage  and  family  life 
has  been  made  against  nearly  every  great  popular  move- 
ment in  history  —  The  charge  made  against  the  early 
Christians  —  Later  it  was  made,  in  pre-Reformation  times, 
against  the  Catholic  Church  —  The  priestly  ideal  of  celi- 
bacy—  Charge  that  the  clergy  reveled  in  the  jus  prima 
noctis,  and  that  lust  reigned  in  convent  and  monastery  — 
Recent  revivals  of  these  charges  —  The  same  charge  is 
made  against  Protestantism  after  the  Reformation  —  Luther 
and  Munzer  are  attacked  —  The  charge  made  in  modern 
times  against  the  English  Chartists,  the  Quakers,  the  advo- 
cates of  Women's  Rights  —  When  Mr.  Roosevelt  charged 
the  Socialists  with  preaching  "  Free  Love,"  he  must  have 
forgotten  how  the  same  charge  was  made  against  the 
Republican  Part\-  at  its  birth  —  No  need  to  deny  that  in- 
dividual Socialists  have  assailed  monogamic  marriage  or 
practiced  "  Free  Love  " —  Vice  cloaked  by  religion  has  ex- 
isted under  Catholic  and  Protestant  rule  alike  —  Some 
examples  of  sexual  excesses  in  religious  history  —  The  un- 
charitable methods  of  the  enemies  of  Socialism  —  Evidence 
of  antagonism  to  marriage  and  of  sexual  excesses  carefully 
gleaned  from  the  history  of  numerous  communistic  experi- 
ments—  Most  of  these  experiments  not  connected  with 
Socialism  either  historically  or  philosophically  —  Most  of 
them  of  religious  origin  —  Celibacy  and  sexual  promiscu- 
ity, the  two  principal  forms  in  which  antagonism  to  mar- 
riage and  family  life  have  been  expressed,  have  been 
mainly  due  to  religious  zeal,  offshoots  of  Christianity  — 
Whatever  hostility  to  marriage  and  the  family  is  found  in 
the  evolution  of  Socialism  is  incidental  and  accidental  — 
A  remnant  of  the  L^topian  spirit  —  The  passion  for  per- 
fection—  From  Plato  to  Mr.  Wells  all  the  Utopians  have 
attempted  to  devise  the  perfect  State  —  Some  Utopians  in- 
spired by  secular  ideals  —  Others  by  religious  ideals  —  Ex- 
amples of  each  group  —  Religious  Communism  more  gen- 
erally hostile  to  marriage  and  family  life  than  secular 
Communism  —  Plato  not  an  advocate  of  "Free  Love" — 
Sir  Thomas  More  —  Campanella  and  Plato  —  Why  the 
Utopians,  secular  and  religious,  were  hostile  to  the  mono- 
gamic family  —  The  comparative  failure  of  monogamic 
marriage  and  family  life  —  The  early  Christian  sects 
which  preached  and  practiced  celibacy,   Plato's  ideal,  the 


xxiv  Contents 

PAGE 

sexual  asceticism  of  mediaeval  Christian  sects,  celibacy  of 
the  Shakers,  sex  Communism  of  the  Apostolicans,  Adamites, 
Perfectionists,  and  other  religious  sects,  ancient  and  mod- 
ern, due  to  the  Utopian  passion  for  perfection  —  The  fear 
that  monogamic  marriage  could  not  be  reconciled  with 
Communism  and  equality  a  factor  —  The  close  association 
of  private  property  and  the  monogamous  family  —  Why 
Communism  in  consumption  goods  was  regarded  as  being 
incompatible  with  the  separate  family  —  Modern  Socialism 
does  not  have  to  face  this  danger  —  The  limited  Commu- 
nism of  productive  goods  involved  in  modern  Socialism 
not  incompatible  with  separate  family  life  —  The  error  of 
Malthus —  The  law  of  population  —  Contempt  for  mo- 
nogamous marriage  expressed  by  some  modern  Socialists, 
like  Bebel,  Bax  and  Morris  —  The  Socialist  movement  not 
responsible  for  these  individual  views  —  Bebel's  view  an 
expression  not  of  Socialism  but  of  crude  Individualism  — 
The  same  is  true  of  the  views  of  Bax  and  Morris  —  The 
mistake  of  regarding  marriage  as  simply  a  property  rela- 
tion—  Conditions  against  which  the  bulk  of  the  modern 
Socialist  criticism  of  marriage  and  the  family  is  directed 
—  Marx  and  Engels  cited  —  Dishonest  perversion  of  the 
words  and  views  of  Marx  and  Engels  —  The  case  of 
Bishop  McFaul  —  The  Rev.  Father  Boarman's  "transla- 
tion" of  Marx  and  Engels  —  Kautsky's  indictment  of  the 
forces  which  are  destroying  family  life  —  Engels  on  the 
relation  of  private  property  to  monogamy  —  His  view  that 
the  economic  freedom  of  women  will  alone  make  true 
monogamy  possible  —  The  theory  of  non-interference  by 
society  asserted  by  the  advocates  of  "  Free  Love  "  is  really 
incompatible  with  the  principle  of  social  responsibility 
which  distinguishes  Socialism  from  Anarchism  —  The  So- 
cialists have  assailed  the  forces  which  make  for  the  de- 
struction of  monogamous  family  life  —  The  "Free  Love" 
propaganda  at  best  an  offshoot  of  Socialism  as  sex  Commu- 
nism has  been  an  offshoot  of  Christianity. 


Socialism  will  profoundly  aflFect  family  life  —  The  fam- 
ily, like  the  State,  subject  to  evolution  —  Within  the 
existing  order  family  life  is  undergoing  great  changes  — 
Kautsky  quoted  —  Functions  once  performed  by  the  family 
now  performed  by  capitalist  industry  or  by  the  State  — 
Impossible  to  forecast  in  detail  the  changes  in  family  life 
which  Socialism  will  involve  —  Engels  quoted  —  Conditions 
which  must  characterize  family  life  in  the   Socialist  State 


Contents  xxv 

PAGE 

and  present  tendencies  indicating  the  probable  attitude  to- 
ward marriage  and  the  family  under  Socialism  —  Cer- 
tainty that  marriage  will  not  rest  upon  what  is  known  as 
"Free  Love" — State  control  over  marriage  —  The  State  as 
Over-Parent  —  The  probable  increase  of  State  control  oyer 
marriage  —  Merlino's  view  —  Marriage  under  Socialism 
must  rest  upon  love  —  Socialism  will  end  prostitution 
within  and  without  wedlock  —  Marriage  a  civil  contract 
under  Socialism  —  No  reason  for  forbidding  additional  re- 
ligious ceremonies  which  are  not  in  conflict  with  the  civil 
law  —  Socialist  society  requires  stability  of  marriage  — 
The  question  of  the  child  and  its  rights  — Parental  re- 
sponsibility essential  —  The  question  of  divorce  —  Mac- 
donald's  view  —  Opposite  view  of  M.  Renard  —  Menger^s 
view  that  in  every  country  the  popular  will  would  repudi- 
ate "Free  Love" — Why  the  problem  will  probably  be 
less  formidable  than  it  now  appears  to  us  — The  causes 
which  now  lead  to  divorce  and  the  disintegration  of  family 
life  —  Why  marriage  in  the  Socialist  State  will  be  based 
upon  monogamy  —  The  real  argument  against  polygamy 
is  not  moral  —  Polygamy  and  group  marriage  belong  to 
outgrown  stages  of  economic  development  —  The  trend  of 
evolution  is  away  from  polygamy,  polyandry  and  group 
marriage  —  Permanence  of  the  private  household  —  Com- 
munal dwellings  not  essential  —  The  real  solution  for 
domestic  drudgery  is  in  the  extensive  use  of  mechanical 
appliances  —  The  individual  home  better  than  the  best 
communal  establishment  —  Collective  agencies  for  doing 
some  of  the  work  of  the  home  —  Demand  for  the  economic 
independence  of  woman  involves  the  obligation  to  labor  — 
The  Socialist  ideal  is  not  sex  parasitism  —  Equal  service 
versus  identical  service  —  M.  Renard  cited  —  The  mainte- 
nance of  the  married  woman,  the  mother  —  Maternity  en- 
dowed by  the  State  —  The  objection  to  State  endowed  and 
wage-paid  motherhood  —  State  control  of  procreation  a 
corollary  of  the  payment  and  endowment  of  mothers  — 
Karl  Pearson's  view  —  Why  a  free  democracy  will  not 
tolerate  this  —  The  wife  of  the  wage-earner  of  to-day  is  not 
a  parasite  —  A  co-earner  of  the  family  income  —  Division 
of  income  an  arrangement  in  present  society  —  Possibility 
of  its  being  made  a  legal  condition  of  marriage  in  the 
Socialist  State. 


xxvi  Contents 


CHAPTER  X 

PAGE 

Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     .....     275-304 

I 

How  will  the  Socialist  State  deal  with  the  intellectual 
workers?  —  How  one  Socialist  paper  met  the  question  — 
Bcbcl's  Utopian  picture  —  How  this  runs  counter  to  one  of 
the  most  powerful  tendencits  of  economic  evolution,  the 
tendency  to  specialization  of  function  —  The  perverted  and 
distorted  view  of  the  essential  meaning  of  the  class  strug- 
gle—  Anti-intellectualism  not  a  democratic  doctrine  — 
True  attitude  of  the  proletariat  toward  education  and  intel- 
lectual leadership  —  Lassalle's  boast — Utopian  nature  of 
the  suggestion  that  Socialism  will  do  away  with  the 
specialization  of  functions  society  has  evolved  —  Democ- 
racy and  its  implications  —  The  Socialist  State  will  not 
waste  the  time  of  its  great  inventors  and  scientists  on  un- 
skilled labor  —  The  productive  system  already  dependent 
upon  the  "collective  power  of  masses"  properly  directed 
and  supervised  —  Supervision  and  direction  a  special  func- 
tion—  How  are  the  directors  and  supervisors  of  industry 
to  be  chosen?  —  Competitive  tests  possible  —  Gronlund's 
forecast  —  Extension  of  collectively  organized  research  and 
experiment  under  Socialism  —  The  conservation  of  every 
gain  made  by  mankind  a  condition  of  Socialism  —  The 
economic  value  of  discoveries  by  such  men  as  Koch, 
Pasteur,  MetchnikofF  and  Behring  far  exceeds  the  value  of 
any  manual  labor  they  could  perform  —  Dr.  Stiles  and  the 
hookworm  disease  —  The  basis  already  laid  for  an  effect- 
ive method  of  selecting  the  intellectual  servants  of  the 
Socialist  State. 


The  molders  of  public  opinion,  the  journalists  and  pub- 
licists—  The  Socialist  State  could  not  suppress  the  right  of 
criticism  as  Mermeix  supposes  —  Democracy  has  always 
fought  for  the  freedom  of  the  press  —  Freedom  of  the  press 
and  literary  production  in  general  an  essential  condition 
of  Socialism  —  How  can  there  be  a  free  press  with  social- 
ized industry?  —  The  publication  of  books  —  Organized 
society  as  a  great  book-buyer  to-day  —  How  organized  so- 
ciety as  a  book-buyer  now  to  a  limited  degree  controls  the 
publication  of  books  —  How  the  private  publisher  might 
be  dispensed  with  in  meeting  the  social  demand  —  Private 


Contents  xxvii 

PAGE 

publication  open  to  the  author  whose  work  might  be  re- 
jected, just  as  to-day  —  Civic  pride  and  the  publication  of 
books  —  George  Bernard  Shaw's  youthful  solution  of  the 
problem  of  book  publishing  —  The  abolition  of  all  private 
printing  presses  not  essential  to  Socialism  —  Kautsky  on 
this  point  —  The  book  which  the  State  refused  to  publish 
might  be  published  by  any  city,  by  a  cooperative  associa- 
tion, a  society  formed  for  the  purpose  or  by  the  author  — 
Suppression  of  free  criticism  thus  made  impossible  —  The 
publication  of  newspapers  —  Functions  of  the  newspaper 
—  The  ideal  newspaper  —  The  typical  newspaper  of  to- 
day—  Advertising  under  Socialism  —  Disappearance  of  the 
costly  and  extensive  advertising  of  to-day  must  lead  to  the 
disappearance  of  the  parasitic  newspaper  press  —  Menger's 
suggestion  of  an  official  newspaper  in  each  city  —  The 
problem  of  catering  to  special  tastes  and  interests  —  Bel- 
lamy's plan  —  Suggestions  of  various  Socialist  writers  — 
No  reason  to  fear  that  the  Socialist  State  must  "  destroy 
itself  by  choking  the  channels  of  its  own  thinking" — Noth- 
ing in  the  programme  of  Socialism  which  involves  the 
suppression  of  the  freedom  of  the  press  —  Why  censorship 
need  not  be  feared  in  a  democracy. 


CHAPTER  XI 

Religious   Freedom   Under  Socialism     .....     305-325 

Bebel's  statement  about  the  party's  "molting" — How 
this  process  is  illustrated  by  the  remarkable  change  in  the 
attitude  of  the  Socialist  movement  toward  religion  during 
the  last  twenty-five  years  —  Bitter  attacks  on  Christianity 
and   the   Christian   Church   in   the   early   Socialist   writings 

—  Liebknecht's  declaration  in  the  Volkstaat  —  Bebel's  dec- 
laration in  the  Reichstag  —  Reasons  for  the  association  of 
Socialism  and  Atheism  —  Religious  sentiment  in  Utopian 
Socialism  —  The  Socialist  programme  not  inconsistent  with 
sincere  religious  belief  —  Christians  of  all  sects,  Protestant 
and  Catholic,  in  the  Socialist  parties  —  The  kinship  and 
affinity  of  Socialism  and  Christianity  —  Professor  Flint's 
view  —  Kautsky's  view  —  The  need  of  distinguishing  be- 
tween attacks  on  the  Church  and  on  religion  itself  —  The 
masses  often  oppose  Christianity  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
false  to  the  teachings  of  Jesus  —  This  attitude  largely  a 
result  of  the  growth  of  class  consciousness  of  the  workers 

—  How  the  Church  has  come  to  be  regarded  as  'the  ally 


xxviii  Contents 

PAGB 

of  capitalism  —  Charity  cannot  supplant  justice  —  M. 
Thiers  on  the  clergy  as  the  preservers  of  the  existing  order 

—  View  of  the  Rev.  R.  J.  Campbell  —  The  tragic  circle  of 
circumstances  —  Intellectual  opposition  to  religion  by  So- 
cialists upon  rationalistic  grounds  diminishing  —  Admis- 
sion of  this  by  the  enemies  of  Socialism  —  The  real  reason 
for  this  is  the  general  subsidence  of  the  tide  of  rationalism 

—  How  the  close  alliance  with  dogmatic  Atheism  in  the 
early  Marxian  Socialist  movement  is  to  be  explained  — 
Contemporaneous  rise  of  Socialism  and  that  destructive 
rationalistic  attack  on  religion  which  began  with  the  Dar- 
winian theories  —  Natural  and  inevitable  association  of 
the  Marxian  and  Darwinian  movements  —  The  Atheism  of 
the  early  Marxists  not  derived  from  their  Marxian  phi- 
losophy, but  from  the  general  philosophical  movement  of 
the  time  —  The  revolution  that  has  taken  place  as  a  result 
of  the  general  acceptance  of  the  principle  of  evolution  — 
We  now  have  evolution  preached  from  the  pulpit  —  Sci- 
ence is  also  less  dogmatic  —  The  bitterness  of  the  old 
conflict  between  religion  and  science  has  passed  away  — 
Dogmatic  Atheism  is,  therefore,  an  obsolete  phase  of  Social- 
ist thought  and  propaganda  —  Declaration  of  the  German 
Socialists  that  "  religion  is  a  private  matter " —  Not  an 
evasive  statement  —  What  it  really  means  —  The  Erfurt 
Programme  upon  this  question  contains  nothing  to  which 
any  loyal  American  might  not  subscribe  —  Separation  of 
Church  and  State  a  cardinal  tenet  of  Socialist  policy  — 
Claim  by  the  Jesuit  writer,  Victor  Cathrein,  that  this  is 
antagonistic  to  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church  —  Why 
many  Catholics  believe  in  the  separation  of  Church  and 
State  —  Freedom  of  religious  organization  a  principle  of 
Socialism  —  Liebkneckt's  address  on  the  right  of  religious 
association  —  The  Socialist  State  will  not  attempt  to 
abolish  religion  or  to  suppress  it  —  On  the  contrary,  it  will 
set  religion  free  from  the  entanglements  of  politics  — 
Above  all,  it  will  make  possible  the  realization  of  the 
social  ideals  which  are  vital  to  true  religion. 


APPENDIX 

Programme    of    the    German    Social    Democratic 

Party 337-334 


APPLIED   SOCIALISM 


I 

INTRODUCTION 

AS  the  term  "  Applied  Socialism  "  is  rather 
new  and  unfamiliar,  it  may  be  advanta- 
geous to  begin  this  study  with  a  definition 
of  the  term  itself:  an  attempt  to  compress  our 
theme  into  the  compass  of  a  concise,  convenient 
and  easily  comprehensible  formula. 

Naturally,  "  Applied  Socialism  "  at  once  sug- 
gests the  more  familiar  term,  "  Applied  Sociol- 
ogy," and  advantage  may  be  taken  of  that  fact  by 
making  our  definition  a  comparative  one.  This  is 
the  more  desirable  because  of  the  fact  that  It  was 
the  use  of  the  adjective  "  applied  "  to  distinguish 
a  branch,  or  department,  of  sociology  which  sug- 
gested the  desirability  of  its  similar  use  In  connec- 
tion with  the  study  of  Socialism. 

Professor  Lester  F.  Ward  divides  the  study  of 
sociology  Into  two  main  divisions.  The  first, 
which  he  calls  "  pure  "  sociology,  relates  to  the 
origin,  nature  and  genetic  or  spontaneous  develop- 

17 


1 8  Applied  Socialism 

merit  of  society.  That  is,  it  concerns  all  social 
phenomena  which  are  not  directly  affected  by  the 
conscious,  purposive  efforts  of  man  and  society. 
The  second  division,  which  he  calls  "  applied " 
sociology,  relates  to  the  conscious,  intelligent  ac- 
tion of  man  and  society  directed  toward  the  chang- 
ing of  social  conditions.^  The  first  seeks  to 
establish  the  principles  of  the  science  itself,  while 
the  second  is  concerned  only  with  the  application 
of  those  principles. 

Such  a  distinction  is  of  necessity  an  arbitrary 
one,  as  Professor  Ward  himself  observes.  It  is 
altogether  impossible  to  separate  completely  the 
spontaneous  from  the  artificial  in  social  phenom- 
ena, the  genetic  from  the  telic.  Nevertheless,  the 
classification  is  no  more  arbitrary  than  are  most 
other  classifications,  and,  wisely  used,  it  is  of  great 
value  to  the  student. 

It  is  self  evident  that  the  directive  faculties  of 
the  human  mind  do  not  and  could  not  exist  inde- 
pendently; that  they  are  rooted  in  the  great  under- 
lying social  dynamic  forces  as  a  tree  is  rooted  in 
its  soil.  It  is  a  fundamental  postulate  of  the  So- 
cialist philosophy,  a  cardinal  principle  of  that  ma- 
terialistic interpretation  of  history  upon  which  the 
philosophy  of  modern  Socialism  rests,  that  eco- 
nomic conditions  form  the  basis  of  human  prog- 

^  Ward,  Pure  Sociology.     Preface. 


Introduction  19 

ress,  at  once  making  conscious  direction  of  that 
progress  possible,  and  calling  the  requisite  direc- 
tive forces  of  mind  and  will  into  being. 

The  rational  faculty  of  man  is  not  a  negligible 
factor  in  human  progress,  as  some  mistaken  and 
over  zealous  interpreters  of  Marx  would  have  us 
believe,  but  it  is  dependent  upon  conditions  which 
are  the  product  of  an  unconscious,  genetic  evolu- 
tionary process.  That  is  why  all  the  Utopias, 
from  Plato  to  Bellamy,  have  failed  of  realization. 
They  were  splendid  creations  of  the  directive 
mind,  bound  to  be  abortive  because  the  economic 
conditions  which  alone  could  make  possible  their 
realization  did  not  exist.  To  borrow  an  apt 
simile  from  Professor  Ward,  the  Utopian  in- 
ventor and  dreamer  is  like  the  mariner  at  the  ship's 
helm;  no  matter  how  skilled  a  helmsman  he  may 
be,  if  the  ship  is  becalmed  he  is  helpless.  In  the 
absence  of  the  propelling  agent,  the  wind,  the  man 
at  the  helm  is  powerless  and  all  his  skill  of  no 
avail. 

The  term  "  Applied  Socialism,"  then,  is  to  be 
used  in  the  same  general  sense  as  that  in  which  we 
use  the  term  "  Applied  Sociology,"  but  with  some 
limitation.  It  has  to  do,  not  with  that  uncon- 
scious, genetic,  irresistible  evolutionary  process 
which  we  can  trace  in  the  strata  of  economic  ideas 
and  institutions,  but  with  the  exercise  of  human  di- 


20  Applied  Socialism 

rective  energies;  not  with  abstract  philosophy,  but 
with  the  concrete  problems  of  directing  social 
movement.  Its  sphere  is  the  telic,  not  the  genetic, 
factor  of  the  social  evolution. 

In  tracing  the  evolution  of  mankind  through 
various  forms  of  social  organization  we  can  con- 
stantly discern  the  interplay  of  the  genetic  and 
telic  agencies  in  that  evolution.  We  see  the  eco- 
nomic forces  which  made  feudalism  impossible  and 
capitalism  necessary,  and  we  see,  also,  human  di- 
rective energy  applied  to  the  destruction  of  feudal 
laws  and  institutions  and  the  development  of  new 
laws  and  institutions.  Representative  govern- 
ment, trial  by  jury,  freedom  of  movement,  police 
systems,  standing  armies  —  these  and  many  other 
features  of  capitalist  civilization  display  man's 
directive  share  in  its  development. 

Socialism  Is  sometimes  declared  to  be  "  inevita- 
ble "  by  its  advocates,  but  it  cannot  be  so  in  any 
absolute  sense,  without  regard  to  the  factor  of  con- 
scious human  direction.  At  most,  it  can  only  be 
contended  that  certain  conditions  are  inevitable, 
and  that  these  conditions  must,  in  accordance  with 
the  great  law  of  self-preservation  which  rules  the 
universe,  call  forth  certain  directive  energies  upon 
the  part  of  human  beings. 

We  are  not  concerned  here  and  now  with  the 
theory  of  Socialism :  we  take  for  granted  its  gen- 
eral acceptance.     Assuming  that  certain  conditions 


Introduction  21 

are  developing  which  will  make  the  maintenance 
of  a  capitalistic  economy  impossible,  and  the  transi- 
tion to  a  Socialistic  economy  imperative,  Applied 
Socialism  deals  with  the  manner  in  which  the  tran- 
sition is  to  be  effected;  how  in  the  polity  of  the 
State  the  principles  of  Socialism  are  to  be  con- 
cretely expressed,  and,  ultimately.  Socialist  ideals 
fully  realized.  It  is  a  broad  and  inviting  field  of 
study  which  is  thus  opened  before  us. 

Reducing  this  definition  to  a  brief  formula,  we 
may  say  that  by  Applied  Socialism  is  meant  the 
concrete  expression  of  Socialist  principles  and  the 
realization  of  Socialist  ideals  in  the  polity  of 
the  State. 

It  will  at  once  be  seen  that  this  involves  the 
creation  of  a  certain  picture  of  the  Socialist  State, 
a  mental  concept  of  the  main  characteristic  fea- 
tures of  a  Socialist  society  as  distinguished  from 
all  other  stages  of  social  development.  Obviously, 
we  cannot  consider  how  the  principles  and  ideals 
of  Socialism  are  to  be  expressed  in  the  polity  of 
the  State  of  some  future  period  without  picturing 
that  future  and  contrasting  it  with  the  present. 
Immediately  the  question  arises:  Can  we  do  this 
without  forsaking  the  methods  of  Marxian,  or 
scientific.  Socialism  and  resorting  to  those  of  the 
Utopians  ? 

This  question  must  be  answered  in  the  affirma- 
tive; otherwise   our  present  study  would  be   im- 


22  Applied  Socialism 

possible.  Kautsky,  whose  eminence  as  a  Marxian 
scholar  lends  value  to  his  opinion,  has  very  cleverly 
and  clearly  shown,  in  his  Das  Erfurter  Programm, 
that,  while  the  scientific  Socialist  may  not  draw 
up  a  prospectus  or  plan  of  the  Socialist  State  of 
the  future,  he  is  by  no  means  debarred  from  all 
thought  concerning  \i.  While  we  may  not  form- 
ulate schemes  for  the  organization  of  the  Socialist 
Republic,  the  Cooperative  Commonwealth,  we 
may  very  well,  and  with  considerable  profit,  seek 
to  ascertain  the  tendencies  of  economic  develop- 
ment, the  direction  which  the  evolution  of  society 
is  following.  The  clearer  our  understanding  of 
these  tendencies,  the  better  shall  we  be  able  to 
shape  our  policy.  When  we  clearly  visualize  the 
tendencies  which  lead  to  the  new  social  order  we 
are  thereby  enabled  to  direct  our  own  actions  with 
greater  intelligence  than  would  otherwise  be  pos- 
sible. Instead  of  blind,  instinctive  effort,  we  can 
give  intelligent  service;  we  can  cooperate  with  the 
forces  of  economic  development. 

It  is  well  to  get  this  point  thoroughly  in  mind: 
when  the  scientific  Socialist  is  asked  to  give  de- 
tailed specifications  of  the  Socialist  State,  to  draw 
pictures  of  the  Cooperative  Commonwealth  for 
which  he  yearns  and  labors,  he  is  prompt  to  reply 
that  he  cannot  do  anything  of  the  sort,  and  to 
ridicule  all  attempts  to  do  so  as  "  Utopian  " — 
which  is  to  the  average  Marxian  Socialist  the  most 


Introduction  23 

effective  and  terrible  of  all  curses.  He  is  apt  to 
become  rather  intolerable  in  his  pride  and  his  con- 
tempt for  Utopianism.  He  is  especially  prone  to 
forget  that  the  essence  of  Utopianism  lies,  not  so 
much  in  the  attempt  to  forecast  the  future,  as  in 
the  manner  in  which  the  attempt  is  made. 

In  a  purely  scientific  temper  and  method,  It  is 
quite  possible  to  study  the  tendencies  of  economic 
development  so  as  to  forecast,  within  limits,  the 
probable  manner  of  the  realization  of  our  ideal. 
The  essence  of  Utopianism  lies  in  its  disregard  of 
the  tendencies  of  economic  development.  The 
true  Utopian  develops  his  forecast  as  a  deduction 
from  some  abstract  principle  or  principles,  not 
from  the  facts  of  economic  and  social  development. 
Laying  down  a  foundation  of  abstract  principle, 
he  proceeds  to  erect  a  superstructure  of  imagina- 
tion.    He  is  an  architect  of  dream  castles. 

In  general  Utopia-building  is  the  harmless  occu- 
pation of  very  amiable  persons.  Productive  of  no 
great  amount  of  harm,  they  are  occasionally  pro- 
ductive of  some  trifling  amount  of  good.  But  oc- 
casionally there  arises  an  unusually  gifted  social 
inventor,  who,  by  reason  of  his  possession  of  the 
genius  which  captures  the  public  mind,  works  posi- 
tive injury.  A  great  book  like  Bellamy's  Looking 
Backward,  for  example,  while  it  awakens  the  in- 
terest of  many  thousands  of  people  in  Socialism, 
and  to  that  extent  does  good,  works  positive  injury 


24  Applied  Socialism 

in  the  long  run  and  obstructs  the  real  Socialist 
movement  by  creating  the  impression  that  Social- 
ism is  a  scheme,  and  inviting  critical  attention  to 
the  details  of  the  author's  imaginings.  The 
pioneers  of  the  modern  Socialist  movement  for 
whom  Marx  and  Engels  wrote  the  Commun- 
ist Manifesto  understood  this  perfectly.  When 
Etienne  Cabet  visited  the  London  Communistlsche 
Arbelter  Bildungsvereln  in  September,  1847,  to 
enlist  the  sympathy  and  support  of  the  members  for 
his  scheme  to  establish  communistic  colonies  In 
North  America,  the  members,  who  had  already 
been  influenced  by  Marx,  spurned  his  plea  and  vig- 
orously condemned  his  efforts.  They  realized 
that  to  give  encouragement  to  Cabet's  attempt  to 
persuade  masses  of  workers  to  leave  Europe  for  the 
purpose  of  establishing  communistic  colonies  in 
America  would  be  to  divert  their  attention  from 
the  real  issues. 

Therefore,  while,  if  we  would  pursue  our  study 
of  the  manner  In  which  Socialist  principles  are  to 
be  realized  In  the  State,  we  must  create  a  certain 
mental  picture  of  society  as  It  will  then  be,  we  must 
not  create  Utopian  pictures.  Such  forecasts  as  we 
may  make  must  be  logical  deductions  from  the 
facts  of  economic  and  social  development,  of  pres- 
ent economic  and  social  conditions  and  tendencies 
historically  considered  and  evaluated.  Such  fore- 
casts must  of  necessity  be  limited  to  broad  general- 


Introduction  25 

izatlons:  they  cannot  contain  the  wealth  of  detail 
that  is  commonly  found  in  Utopian  pictures  of  the 
future  society.  And,  even  so,  careful  as  we  may 
be  In  our  efforts  to  determine  the  direction  of 
social  progress,  the  best  forecasts  we  may  make 
will  be  uncertain. 

The  term  "  Socialist  State  "  which  we  have  so 
freely  used  Is  In  some  respects  a  misnomer  and 
scientific  Socialists  have  very  generally  avoided  Its 
use.  One  Important  reason  for  this  avoidance, 
rooted  in  the  conception  of  the  State  as  an  agent 
of  class  rule  and  repression,  we  need  not  consider 
until  a  later  chapter.  For  the  present,  we  are  con- 
cerned with  that  reason  for  the  avoidance  of  the 
term  which  has  Influenced  most  scientific  Socialists, 
but  as  scientists  rather  than  as  Socialists. 

There  can  be  no  sharp,  efficient  division  of  the 
existing  State  from  the  future  State  of  Socialism. 
Few  things  are  more  difficult  than  completely  to 
divest  our  minds  of  the  notion  that  a  sharp  divid- 
ing line  can  be  drawn  between  the  capitalistic  state 
of  society  and  the  Socialistic  state  of  society  which 
must  succeed  It.  Just  as  we  cannot  bound  histori- 
cal epochs  by  exact  dates,  and  must  therefore  use 
such  terms  as  "  the  end  of  feudalism  "  and  "  the 
rise  of  capitalism  "  In  a  very  loose  and  general 
sense,  so  we  cannot  with  strict  accuracy  speak  of  the 
Socialist  State  as  an  entity  separate  and  distinct 
from  the  existing  State.     We  may  use  such  terms 


26  Applied  Socialism 

in  our  discussion  with  advantage,  provided  there  is 
mutual  understanding  that  they  are  not  to  be  in- 
terpreted too  literally. 

That  which  is  commonly  spoken  of  as  the  So- 
cialist State  cannot  exist  wholly  independent  of  the 
existing  State.  It  can  only  be  a  modification  of 
the  existing  State,  a  development  rather  than  a 
departure.  In  those  wonderfully  sane  and  illumi- 
nating fragments,  posthumously  published  in  the 
Berlin  Vorivdrts,  of  his  unfortunately  never  com- 
pleted answer  to  the  question.  How  Shall  Socialism 
be  Put  Into  Practice?  Wilhelm  Liebknecht,  the 
greatest  political  leader  of  the  modern  Socialist 
movement,  wrote : 

"  But  we  are  not  going  to  attain  Socialism  at  one 
bound.  The  transformation  is  going  on  all  the 
time,  and  the  important  thing  for  us  ...  Is 
not  to  paint  a  picture  of  the  future  —  which  in  any 
case  would  be  useless  labor  —  but  to  forecast  a 
practical  programme  for  the  intermediate  period, 
to  formulate  and  justify  measures  that  shall  be  ap- 
plicable at  once,  and  that  will  serve  as  aids  to  the 
new  Socialist  birth." 

In  view  of  the  conflict  of  ideas  and  tendencies 
within  the  Socialist  movement,  dividing  it  into  two 
fairly  well-defined  schools,  the  "  Opportunists " 
and  the  strict  "  Revolutionists,"  the  intransigents, 
it  will  be  well  to  pay  special  attention  to  Lieb- 
knecht's  declaration  that  "  we  are  not  going  to  at- 


Introduction  27 

tain  Socialism  at  one  bound,"  and  that  the  transi- 
tion to  Socialism  "  is  going  on  all  the  time."  It  is 
very  evident  that  Liebknecht's  profoundest  thought 
rejected  the  idea  of  sudden  transformations  of 
society. 

^  Liebknecht's  attitude  upon  this  question  faith- 
fully reflects  the  thought  of  Marx,  his  great  teacher 
and  friend.  A  few  passages  from  his  writings 
might  be  cited  to  prove  that  Marx  rejected  the  idea 
of  a  gradual  transformation  of  society,  and  be- 
lieved that  the  change  must  come  as  a  result  of  a 
great  cataclysm.  To  deny  the  existence  of  such 
passages  is  Impossible,  but  they  cannot  be  said  to 
represent  his  mature  judgment.  At  times  Marx 
lapsed  into  the  Utopian  thought  of  his  time,  against 
which  his  life  and  thought  as  a  whole  were  directed. 
These  passages  which  indicate  a  belief  in  a  sudden 
transformation  of  society  are  the  product  of  those 
occasional  lapses.  Against  them  must  be  set  the 
contrary  logic  of  his  entire  philosophy,  and  the  con- 
sistency of  his  example  as  a  political  leader.  He 
never  failed  to  rebuke  those  who  sought  to  per- 
suade the  proletariat  that  a  sudden  transformation 
was  possible.  When  Liebknecht  wrote  that  the 
transition  to  Socialism  "  is  going  on  all  the  time  " 
he  faithfully  expressed  a  cardinal  principle  of 
Marxism. 

Recent  developments  in  biology,  particularly  the 
"  mutation  "  theory  of  Hugo  de  Vrles  and  the  re- 


28  Applied  Socialism 

discovery  of  the  Mendellan  law,  have  done  much 
to  remove  the  one  great  difficulty  inherent  in  Dar- 
winism. The  immense  periods  of  time  required 
for  evolution  by  natural  selection  have  always 
baffled  the  imagination.  To  a  very  large  extent, 
that  difficulty  has  been  removed,  by  the  theory  of 
evolution  by  mutation,  of  the  sudden  development 
of  new  species. 

The  importance  of  the  new  theories  is  not  con- 
fined to  biological  science.  To  sociology  they  are 
equally  important.  Just  as  the  Darwinian  theory 
of  natural  selection  baffled  the  Imagination  because 
of  the  immense  periods  of  time  required,  so,  in 
every  application  of  the  biological  theory  to  the 
evolution  of  society  there  has  been  an  inherent  ele- 
ment of  pessimism.  The  theory  seemed  at  least 
to  imply  the  necessity  of  vast  periods  of  time  for 
relatively  slight  changes.  The  recent  develop- 
ments of  biology  have  done  much  to  relieve  sociol- 
ogy from  this  pessimism.  Socialist  writers  have 
not  missed  the  opportunity  afforded  by  the  work 
of  Mendel  and  De  Vrles  and  their  followers  to 
add  to  the  strength  of  their  position. 

So  far,  good  and  well.  But  the  new  biological 
developments  have  had  the  unexpected  —  though 
not  unnatural  —  result  of  reviving  in  no  small  de- 
gree the  old  and  outworn  Utopian  belief  in  sud- 
den social  transformations.  This  Is  more  than  a 
too  literal  application  of  the  laws  of  biology  to 


Introduction  29 

sociology;  in  their  sociological  application  the  bio- 
logical laws  are  so  stretched  as  to  lose  nearly  all 
semblance  to  their  true  forms  and  functions. 

The  fact  that  a  new  plant  or  animal  species  may 
be  developed  by  mutation  in  nowise  justifies  belief 
in  the  sudden  and  simultaneous  transformation  of 
all  the  species  in,  say,  the  vegetable  kingdom. 
Still  less  does  it  justify  belief  in  the  possibility  of  a 
sudden  and  simultaneous  transformation  of  all  the 
mass  of  customs,  laws,  conventions  and  social  and 
political  institutions  which  comprise  our  present  so- 
cial system.  A  new  species  of  primrose  Is  devel- 
oped by  mutation,  but  the  old  species  remain.  If 
the  entire  primrose  family  had  been  transformed 
by  a  single  mutation,  that  fact  would  not  justify 
the  inference  which  a  few  enthusiasts  have  made 
from  the  mutation  of  single  plants,  namely,  that  all 
society  can  likewise  be  transformed  by  a  sudden 
revolution,  or  mutation. 

The  true  application  of  the  theory  would  seem 
rather  to  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  society  can  be 
transformed,  in  the  sense  of  a  change  from  capital- 
ism to  Socialism,  by  means  of  a  series  of  mutations. 
History  records  many  Instances  of  sudden  trans- 
formations, such  as  from  absolutism  to  constitu- 
tionalism, or  even  republicanism.  That  is  a  very 
different  thing,  however,  from  the  sudden  trans- 
formation of  the  whole  social  and  political  life  of 
a  nation  by  a  single  mutation,  of  which  there  is 


20  Applied  Socialism 

not  an  instance  in  history.     For  such  a  result  no 
single  revolution  or  mutation  will  suffice,  but  only 

a  series. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  theory  of  evolution  by 
mutations  that  Is  Incompatible  with  the  Marxian 
theory  of  social  evolution.  But  we  must  reject 
the  catastrophic  theory  of  sudden  transformations 
of  the  social  organism  as  being  not  only  incompati- 
ble with  the  fundamental  philosophy  of  Marxian 
Socialism,  but  contrary  to  the  whole  movement  of 
history. 

Early  In  his  career,  as  one  of  the  "  Young  He- 
gelians," Marx  became  Imbued  with  the  idea  of 
the  continuity  and  fluidity  of  human  progress. 
While  he  abandoned  the  Hegelian  idea  that  spirit 
is  the  essence  of  all  things,  and  Insisted  that  the 
material  factors  In  progress  are  the  decisive  ones, 
he  retained  the  fundamental  Idea  of  development 
as  a  mors  immor talis.  Unlike  its  parent  in  many 
respects,  the  Marxian  theory  of  historical  develop- 
ment was  born  out  of  the  Hegelian  womb.  Un- 
questionably, Liebknecht  was  right:  the  funda- 
mental idea  of  Marxism  is  that  the  Socialist  State 
is  being  developed  within  the  existing  social  system. 

But,  it  may  he  asked,  how  does  this  evolutionary 
idea  conform  to  the  concept  of  a  Social  Revolu- 
tion, so  long  considered  as  a  tenet  of  Socialist 
faith?     Are  not  these  antithetical  concepts? 

We  must  answer  such  questions  as  these  with  en- 


Introduction  31 

tire  frankness.  But  first,  as  a  preliminary  condi- 
tion, let  us  understand  what  Is  meant  —  what 
Marx  meant,  if  you  like  —  by  the  term  "  Social 
Revolution."  Does  it  mean  a  method  or  a  result? 
Most  people  seem  to  think  that  by  social  revolu- 
tion we  Socialists  mean  a  method  of  bringing  about 
the  transformation  of  society,  whereas,  on  the  con- 
trary, we  mean  the  result,  regardless  of  the  method. 
The  transformation  of  the  machinery  of  produc- 
tion and  distribution  from  capitalistic  to  social 
property  Is  the  Social  Revolution,  no  matter  what 
means  are  used  to  bring  It  about,  as  Kautsky,^ 
among  others,  has  explained.  This  —  the  result 
—  Is  not  more  or  less  revolutionary  whether  at- 
tained by  violent  or  peaceful  methods,  by  legal  en- 
actment or  civil  war,  by  confiscation  or  the  pay- 
ment of  Indemnity  to  the  present  owners. 

This  revolution  is  prepared  In  the  necessary  and 
inevitable  development  of  capitalist  society,  and  Is 
itself  Inevitable  and  Irresistible.  By  this  It  Is  not 
meant  that  It  will  come  automatically,  or  sponta- 
neously; that  men  and  women  are  mere  puppets. 
As  we  have  already  seen,  the  Socialist  philosophy 
does  not  rest  upon  the  assumption  that  men  are 
mere  automatons.  We  are  dealing  with  human 
beings,  subject  to  passions,  desires,  Impulses  and 
needs.     What  Is  Inevitable  and  irresistible  is  the 

^  Kautsky,  Das  Erfurier  Programm.  Also,  The  Social  Rev- 
tlution. 


^2  Applied  Socialism 

constant  development  of  conditions  culminating  in 
crises  which  compel  men  to  struggle  for  relief  from 
exploitation  and  misery  and  for  a  larger  measure 
of  happiness. 

It  is  by  no  means  essential  that  such  changes  be 
attended  with  violence  and  bloodshed.  Nor  is  it 
necessary  that  they  take  the  form  of  sudden  up- 
heavals. They  may  be  decades  or  generations  in 
developing,  and  accomplished  only  within  the  span 
of  further  decades  or  generations,  but  they  are  not 
the  less  revolutionary  upon  that  account.  Unless 
we  thus  interpret  the  term  "  Social  Revolution," 
how  are  we  to  understand  what  Marx  meant  when 
he  used  the  phrase  "  revolutionary  evolution  "  in 
his  rebuke  to  the  would-be  makers  of  revolution  by 
conspiracies  and  insurrections  ? 

It  is  not  too  much  to  claim  that  the  pregnant 
phrase,  "  revolutionary  evolution,"  is  one  of  the 
best  guides  that  we  have  to  the  thought  of  Marx. 
Taken  in  conjunction  with  the  circumstances  in 
which  it  was  used  by  him,  and  the  fact  that  during 
many  years  he  courageously  and  consistently  op- 
posed all  who  attempted  to  incite  the  workers  to 
violent  insurrections  — "  mouthers  of  revolution- 
ary phrases,"  as  he  contemptuously  dubbed  them  — 
the  term  may  safely  be  regarded  as  an  index  of  his 
maturest  thought.  Marx  understood  social  revo- 
lution in  the  sense  here  described.^ 

1  The  reader  is  referred  to  my  Karl  Marx:  His  Life  and 
Work  for  a  more  thorough  discussion  of  this  point. 


Introduction  33 

So  we  come  to  Liebknecht's  other  thought,  that 
the  transition  is  "  going  on  all  the  time,"  and  that 
our  present  labor  is  to  "  forecast  a  practical  pro- 
gramme for  the  intermediate  period,  to  formulate 
and  justify  measures  that  shall  be  applicable  at 
once,  and  that  will  serve  as  aids  to  the  new  Social- 
ist birth."  If  we  accept  Liebknecht's  position  — 
which  is  a  logical  deduction  from  Marxian  princi- 
ples —  we  must,  it  is  evident,  make  some  forecast 
of  the  future  State.  If  our  programme  is  to  be 
for  an  *'  intermediate  period,"  a  means  to  an  end, 
how  can  we  formulate  it  without  some  idea  of  the 
end  it  is  designed  to  reach? 

Professor  Ward  has  shown  that  there  is  no  such 
thing  in  reality  as  the  abolition  of  social  institu- 
tions.^ All  social  institutions  change  their  charac- 
ter to  adapt  themselves  to  the  time  and  its  peculiar 
needs,  and  the  successive  forms  may  take  different 
names  and  be  so  different  as  to  appear  wholly  new 
and  entirely  unrelated  to  the  older  forms.  But 
the  relationship  is  there,  nevertheless,  and  the  ap- 
parently new  institution  is  in  reality  a  development 
or  a  modification  of  the  old.  Thus,  the  idea  of 
the  Socialist  State  growing  out  of  the  present  capi- 
talistic State  conforms  to  a  great  universal  law  of 
development.  The  law  of  social  evolution  is  an 
eternal  becoming. 

Like  its  predecessors,  the  capitalist  State,  as  a 

*  Ward,  Pure  Sociology,  p.  31. 


34  Applied  Socialism 

condition  of  Its  own  existence,  Is  constantly  en- 
larging Its  functions,  constantly  assuming  new  and 
exi-enslve  social  responsibilities  and  obligations. 
Thus  It  Is  undergoing  a  great  and  far  reaching 
modification,  amounting  to  an  almost  complete 
transformation.  In  the  course  of  this  transforma- 
tion there  Is  prepared  the  framework,  the  struc- 
tural skeleton  of  the  Socialist  State. 

But  we  must  be  careful  to  distinguish  between 
the  form  and  the  thing.  The  structural  frame- 
work of  a  new  social  order  must  not  be  confounded 
with  the  new  social  order  Itself.  Contemplating 
the  extension  of  social  functions  and  responsibili- 
ties which  goes  on  within  the  present  State,  many 
persons  have  hastily  concluded  that  every  such  ex- 
tension Is  a  manifestation  of  practical  Socialism. 
Thus,  municipal  ownership  of  waterworks  and 
other  public  utilities  is  called  an  illustration  of 
practical  Socialism,  quite  regardless  of  the  fact 
that  the  vital  elements  of  Socialism  may  be  entirely 
absent.  Government  ownership  and  control  of 
railways  and  telegraphs,  public  education,  hospital 
service,  and  a  multitude  of  similar  forms  of  social 
activity  and  service  undertaken  by  the  State,  are 
deemed  to  be  Illustrations  of  Socialism  in  actual 
practice.  Naturally,  whatever  virtues  or  defects 
may  be  manifested  by  these  activities  are  at  once 
attributed  to  Socialism.  It  is  this  fact  which  con- 
stitutes the  chief  evil  of  all  such  reasoning. 


Introduction  35 

If,  within  the  present  State,  it  is  found  to  be 
necessary  to  transform  some  community  service, 
such  as  the  supply  of  water  or  gas,  from  private 
or  capitahstic  ownership  to  public  ownership,  and 
the  publicly  owned  enterprise  is  seized  upon  by  a 
horde  of  cormpt  officials,  that  is  at  once  held  to 
be  an  essential  condition  of  Socialism,  notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  all  the  corruption  of  the 
public  service  may  be  in  the  interest  of  predatory 
capitalist  enterprises.  The  inference  is  entirely 
unwarranted,  of  course.  The  publicly  owned 
water  supply  or  lighting  service,  corrupted  in  the 
interest  of  parasitic  and  predatory  capital,  is  not 
an  illustration  of  applied  Socialism.  It  lacks  the 
essential  characteristics  of  Socialism.  It  is  not 
permeated  by  the  spirit  of  social  interest,  but  re- 
tains essentially,  though  in  disguise,  the  central 
principle  of  capitalistic  economy,  the  exploitation 
of  social  needs  and  opportunities  in  private  or 
quasi-private  interests. 

Russia's  imperial  monopolies,  Germany's  State- 
owned  railways,  and  all  similar  undertakings,  are 
not  bits  of  Socialism  actually  realized.  They  are 
social  forms  which  capitalism  has  been  forced  to 
adopt,  forms  essential  to  the  Socialist  State  it  is 
true,  but  within  which  capitalism  continues  to  work, 
adapting  itself  to  the  needs  imposed  upon  it  by 
the  terms  of  its  own  development.  Not  until  cap- 
italism has  exhausted  itself  within  those  forms  and 


36  Applied  Socialism 

ceased  to  work  in  them,  and  they  are  possessed  by 
the  genius,  the  spirit,  of  the  new  social  order,  will 
it  be  right  to  regard  them  as  examples  of  Socialism 
in  actual  practice. 

In  other  words,  they  belong  to  the  transitional 
stage  which  is  characterized  by  the  modification  of 
the  structural  forms  of  the  capitalist  State  into 
forms  which  will  of  necessity  become  the  frame- 
work of  the  new  social  order.  Within  these  new 
forms,  capitalism  can  only  continue  to  exist  for  a 
period.  Sooner  or  later,  it  must  fail  and  give  place 
to  the  system  better  adapted  to  the  forms.  That 
period  will  be  long  or  short  according  to  conditions 
partly  within  and  partly  without  the  directive  ca- 
pacity and  will  of  mankind.  It  may  be  accelerated 
by  the  urge  of  blind,  irresistible  forces,  as  the  great 
mechanical  inventions  hastened  the  dissolution  of 
feudalism,  or  it  may  be  either  hastened  or  retarded 
by  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom,  the  activity  or  inac- 
tivity, of  the  citizens. 

To  sum  up :  Capitalism  is  not  introducing  So- 
cialism piecemeal,  but  it  is  bringing  about  changes 
which  in  their  totality  make  up  a  large  part  of  the 
necessary  structural  framework  of  the  Socialist 
State.  This  process  is  not  something  that  is  dis- 
tinct and  apart  from  the  Social  Revolution  to  which 
so  much  of  our  Socialist  writing  is  devoted.  It  is 
part  of  it.  Marx  had  this  in  mind  when  he  said 
that  Capitalism  is  always  "  producing  its  own 
grave-diggers." 


II 

SOCIALISM   AND   THE    STATE 

FOR  a  modern  man,  with  his  conception 
and  experience  of  the  State  as  it  is  in  the 
twentieth  century,  to  attempt  to  sketch  the 
probable  course  of  the  development  of  the  State, 
bv  a  ■priori  speculation,  without  reference  to  or  de- 
pendence upon  the  mass  of  facts  which  has  been 
accumulated,  would  be  a  sure  way  to  ludicrous  re- 
sults. How  ludicrous  can  best  be  imagined  when 
we  remember  how,  speculating  in  like  spirit,  with- 
out the  evidences  of  geology,  men  have  attempted 
to  account  for  the  origin  and  development  of  the 
earth  itself.  We  need  only  think  of  the  myste- 
rious cosmogonies  and  cosmographies  of  some  of 
the  primitive  religions,  and  the  theory  of  a  special 
creation,  in  six  days,  believed  by  millions  of  peo- 
ple right  into  our  own  generation,  to  realize  how 
futile  and  abortive  such  a  priori  speculations  must 
be. 

We  must  depend  upon  facts  if  we  would  under- 
stand the  State.  Yet,  for  all  that,  imagination 
cannot  be  entirely  dispensed  with.  Indeed,  imagi- 
nation must  of  necessity  play  a  large  part  in  our 

37 


38  Applied  Socialism 

understanding,  and  nothing  could  well  be  more 
foolish  than  the  common  demand  for  the  total 
repression  of  imagination  in  all  scientific  and  phil- 
osophical study.  No  one  is  more  completely  de- 
pendent upon  facts  than  the  historian.  His  rec- 
ord must  be  true  and  trustworthy,  so  that  we  may 
regard  it  as  a  mirror  in  which  the  image  of  the 
past  is  truly  reflected.  Yet  imagination  is  as 
much  a  part  of  the  equipment  of  the  historian 
as  the  capacity  for  collecting  and  compiling  facts. 
It  requires  imagination  of  a  very  high  order 
rightly  to  relate  the  facts  to  each  other.  In  the 
work  of  a  great  historian,  such  as  Motley,  Momm- 
sen,  Green  or  McMaster,  we  marvel  no  less 
at  the  splendid  imagination  which  visualizes  the 
facts  and  recreates  past  epochs  for  us,  so  that  we 
seem  to  live  in  them,  than  at  the  patient  and 
plodding  labor  which  gathered  the  facts  and  so 
deftly  wove  them  into  narrative  pictures. 

So  it  is  with  the  scientist.  In  biology  the  name 
of  Darwin  shines  out  like  a  resplendent  beacon,  a 
marvelous  example  of  patient,  painstaking  gather- 
ing and  massing  of  facts.  But,  surely,  the  genius 
of  Darwin  was  not  less  remarkable  for  its  superb 
Imagination  than  for  the  care  and  assiduity  with 
which  he  gathered  his  data.  It  required  imagi- 
native gifts  equal  to  any  that  ever  inspired  song 
or  story,  witchery  of  poet  or  painter,  to  produce 
The  Origin  of  Species,  to  build  fact  upon  fact  into 


Socialism  and  the  State  39 

the  great  pyramid  of  scientific  theory  which  bears 
his  name. 

It  was  said  of  Cuvier  that  from  a  single  bone 
he  could  mentally  construct  a  whole  skeleton,  and 
naturalists  to-day  frequently  picture  the  animal  life 
of  untold  ages  past  with  nothing  to  guide  them 
but  a  few  fossilized  bones.  In  this  they  display 
imaginative  genius  equal  to  any  in  the  whole  scope 
of  human  achievement.  While  we  recognize  that 
these  pictures  cannot  be  regarded  as  being  abso- 
lutely true,  that  they  may  and  do  fail  In  detail,  we 
know  that  they  bring  us  much  nearer  to  actual 
reality  than  the  most  Ingenious  or  learned  a  priori 
speculation  could  have  done.  The  popular  no- 
tion that  science  Is  fatal  to  the  imagination  is 
grotesquely  untrue. 

A  heap  of  bones  found  at  Trinil,  on  the  Island 
of  Java,  pointing  to  the  coexistence  with  animals 
long  since  extinct  of  a  creature  half  brute  and  half 
human,  makes  possible  a  picture  of  life  in  the 
tertiary  period;  a  cave  is  broken  into  by  unsus- 
pecting workmen  and  the  Neander  Valley  man 
steps  out  from  the  ice  age,  as  it  were.  And  by 
a  like  welding  of  fact  and  Imagination  the  sociolo- 
gist Is  enabled  to  reconstruct  the  past,  and  to 
unfold  before  our  modern  gaze  the  great  drama 
of  life  in  ages  remotely  past.  Just  as  the  rocks 
have  preserved  the  footprints  of  men  who  lived 
countless  ages  ago,  and  fossilized  their  skulls  and 


40  Applied  Socialism 

limbs,  their  weapons  and  tools  and  the  vegetable 
and  animal  life  with  which  they  were  contempo- 
raneous, making  it  possible  for  the  geologist  and 
the  biologist  to  unite  in  picturing  their  life  and  en- 
vironment for  us,  so  there  have  been  preserved 
in  the  strata  of  history  materials  which  the  soci- 
ologist and  the  historian  may  use  to  picture  so- 
cial conditions,  customs  and  institutions  long  since 
extinct. 

Fossilized  in  legends  and  traditions,  and  In  the 
customs  and  organizations  of  savage  tribes  living 
right  Into  our  own  time,  are  found  the  fragments 
of  those  social  conditions,  customs  and  Institutions 
which,  added  to  the  picture  of  primitive  man  cre- 
ated by  the  biologist,  enable  the  sociologist  to  con- 
struct a  picture  of  his  life  and  environment. 
With  here  a  fact  and  there  an  inference  from 
legend  or  tradition  or  custom,  almost  as  certain 
as  the  fact  and  fitting  into  It  as  one  bone  fits  Into 
another,  the  great  skeleton  of  the  past  is  restored 
by  the  genius  of  the  present. 

Numerous  and  vast  as  the  gaps  must  be,  the 
outline  is  nevertheless  reasonably  firm  and  certain. 
To  convince  ourselves  that  this  scientific  method  Is 
infinitely  superior  to  a  priori  reasoning,  we  need 
only  compare  the  results  of  both.  Let  us  take, 
by  way  of  example,  the  ideas  of  the  origin  of  the 
State  contained  in  the  Theocracy  of  the  ancient 


Socialism  and  the  State  4I 

Hebrew  and  the  Social  Contract  theory  of  Rous- 
seau: 

The  idea  that  God  wrote  the  first  laws  upon 
tablets  of  stone,  thus  instituting  the  State  and  lay- 
ing its  obligations  upon  Man,  has  dominated  the 
thought  of  the  world  in  strange  ways.  It  was  the 
basic  idea  of  feudalism  and  the  "  divine  right  of 
kings " ;  it  nurtured  the  doctrines  of  Papal  in- 
fallibility and  temporal  sovereignty.  As  Moses 
received  the  Law  from  God  amidst  the  thunder- 
ings  of  Sinai,  so  king  and  pope  derived  their  au- 
thority from  God  and  were  His  vice  regents  — 
an  idea  surviving  in  the  grotesque  heroics  of  the 
German  Kaiser  and  President  Baer's  famous 
boast  that  the  coal  mine  owners  of  America  are 
God's  specially  chosen  and  inspired  trustees. 

A  modification  of  the  Theocratic  idea  is  that 
of  an  original  genius  as  lawgiver,  the  "  great  man  " 
idea  which  runs  like  a  thread  through  the  whole 
fabric  of  the  history  of  human  thought.  This 
idea  can  be  traced  In  the  traditions  and  philosophies 
of  every  race  and  nation.  It  simply  removes  God 
from  the  top  of  Sinai  and  leaves  Moses  there  in- 
spired as  the  great  original  lawgiver.  It  makes 
Solon  responsible  for  the  Attic  State,  Lycurgus  for 
the  Spartan  State,  and  Alfred  the  Great  for  the 
English  State.  » 

This  conception  of  the  origin  of  the  State  marks 
a  great  advance  over  the  Theocratic  idea   from 


42  Applied  Socialism 

whence  it  was  derived,  in  so  far  as  it  developed 
the  notion  that  the  State  is  the  result  of  conscious 
human  effort.  It  stimulated  that  individualism  of 
Initiative  and  daring  which  alone  could  break  down 
the  fatalism  and  resignation  that  paralyzed  man- 
kind so  long  as  it  was  believed  that  the  State  was 
created  by  God.  Sc  long  as  men  believed  that 
the  State  and  all  other  human  Institutions  came 
from  the  omniscience  and  omnipotence  of  God, 
they  were  utterly  helpless,  but  to  regard  them  as 
the  creations  of  a  Moses  or  a  Solon  made  it  pos- 
sible for  men  to  dream  of  changing  them  to  suit 
their  desires,  and  to  dare  the  attempt.  It  was 
possible  to  dream  that  other  and  greater  leaders 
might  arise  to  improve  upon  the  work  of  a  Moses 
or  a  Solon.  It  was,  of  course,  a  purely  Utopian 
concept  in  that  It  regarded  the  State  and  all  other 
human  Institutions  as  things  created  according  to 
plan,  rather  than  as  developing  in  accordance  with 
the  needs  and  experience  of  the  race. 

Just  as  the  theory  of  a  great  human  genius  aris- 
ing as  the  first  lawgiver  and  creator  of  the  State 
is  a  modification  of  the  Theocratic  Idea,  so  the 
theory  of  the  social  contract,  which  Locke  in  the 
seventeenth  century  and  Rousseau  In  the  eight- 
eenth, among  others,  so  well  developed,  Is  in  its 
turn  a  modification  of  the  great  man  theory.  This 
theory  of  the  social  contract  Is  of  special  interest 
and  Importance  for  us  because  of  the  Influence  it 


Socialism  and  the  State  43 

has  exerted  upon  radical  thought  and  radical 
movements.  Its  fundamental  principle  of  a  '*  law 
of  nature  "  entered  largely  Into  the  propaganda 
of  the  French  Revolution  and  has  been  the  phil- 
osophical creed  of  many  radical  movements  since 
then.  The  concept  of  "  natural  rights  "  Is  ex- 
pressed In  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and 
has  long  been  regarded  as  sacred  by  the  great 
mass  of  the  American  people. 

According  to  this  theory,  there  exists,  outside 
of  and  transcending  all  the  laws  of  men,  a  great 
law  of  nature.  Nowhere  very  clearly  defined, 
even  by  Its  most  Illustrious  exponents,  this  "  law  " 
may  be  said  to  be  the  sum  of  the  cardinal  virtues, 
forming  an  abstract  standard  to  which  all  human 
laws  should  be  made  to  conform,  and  by  which 
they  may  be  judged.  Thus  Hobbes,  In  his 
Leviathan,  describes  It  as  Including  justice,  mercy, 
equity  and  modesty,  and  likens  It  to  the  Golden 
Rule.  As  the  violation  and  disregard  of  the  "  na- 
tural "  and  "  Inalienable  "  rights  of  men  formed 
the  chief  count  in  the  Indictment  of  British  mis- 
rule which  Jefferson  penned  In  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  so  In  general  the  philosophers  of 
eighteenth-century  radicalism  judged  all  Institu- 
tions by  the  same  abstract  standard. 

This  law  reigns  In  a  "  state  of  nature."  It  Is 
only  abrogated  when  evil  passions  and  desires 
overwhelm  men.     Born  subject  to  Its  rule,  man- 


44  '^Applied  Socialism 

kind  proved  too  wicked  to  obey  it.  If  all  men 
were  perfect,  this  law  of  nature  would  have  suf- 
ficed to  regulate  their  conduct  toward  each  other 
and  no  State  would  have  been  necessary.  But, 
since  men  have  never  yet  attained  to  a  state  of 
perfect  conduct,  the  nonsocial  parts  of  their  na- 
ture—  pride,  greed,  ambition  and  passion  — 
proved  too  strong  to  be  subordinated  completely 
to  this  law,  and  so  the  "  state  of  nature  "  became 
one  of  constant  warfare.  To  avoid  mutual  ex- 
termination, the  state  of  warfare  was  brought  to 
an  end  by  men  "  agreeing  together  mutually  to 
enter  into  one  community  and  make  one  body 
politic,"  as  Locke  expresses  it.*  Thus  arose  the 
State  with  its  common  authority  and  magistracies 
to  judge  between  man  and  man. 

Like  the  great  man  theory  and  that  of  the  di- 
vine institution  of  the  State,  this  theory  of  the  so- 
cial contract  rests  altogether  upon  a  priori  specula- 
tion. The  definite  and  deliberate  creation  of  the 
State  is  common  to  all  three  theories.  According 
to  the  first,  the  Theocratic  theory,  God  made  the 
State;  according  to  the  second,  the  inspired  genius 
theory,  a  great  human  master  mind  conceived  and 
planned  it;  according  to  the  third,  the  theory  of  the 
social  contract,  men  in  mutual  action,  by  contractual 
means,  made  it. 

Now,   this  social   agreement,   or  contract,    in- 

1  Locke,  On  Civil  Government. 


Socialism  and  the  State  45 

volved  the  surrender  by  the  individual  of  his  nat- 
ural rights  to  the  State.  And  as  the  State  came 
into  existence  originally  by  the  free  and  deliberate 
agreement  of  its  members,  its  present  members  by 
continuing  within  it  and  sharing  its  advantages  are 
assumed  voluntarily  to  acquiesce  in  and  agree  to  its 
authority. 

We  need  not  consider  at  any  length  the  obvious 
weakness  of  this  once  generally  accepted,  but  now 
discredited  theory.  It  is  sufficient  for  our  present 
purpose  to  bear  in  mind  its  fundamental  defect, 
namely,  that  it  presupposes  a  considerably  ad- 
vanced stage  of  intellectual  development  before 
the  State  could  appear,  whereas  the  institution 
exists,  more  or  less  clearly  defined,  among  very 
savage  peoples.  Judged  as  a  theory  of  the  origin 
of  the  State,  the  social  contract  theory  has  little 
merit.  It  is  only  when  we  judge  it  as  the  philo- 
sophical basis  of  the  propaganda  which  discredited 
the  divine  right  of  kings,  and  made  possible  the 
assertion  of  popular  sovereignty  in  the  State,  that 
it  assumes  importance  as  marking  a  great  advance 
in  political  science. 

That  the  State  came  into  existence  through  con- 
quest, the  subjugation  of  one  set  of  people  by  an- 
other, is  now  generally  believed  by  sociologists  of 
all  schools.  But  the  State  did  not  come  into  ex- 
istence spontaneously  and  fully  developed.  It  is 
a  growth  with  roots  that  lie  far  deeper  than  the 


46  Applied  Socialism 

subjugation  of  tribe  by  tribe  or  race  by  race. 
With  striking  and  convincing  unanimity  sociolo- 
gists agree  that  government  had  its  origin  in  family 
customs  and  discipline.  It  seems  reasonably  cer- 
tain also  that  the  form  of  the  family  from  which 
the  first  organized  government  was  developed  was 
that  known  as  the  patriarchate,  the  family  in  which 
the  father  was  the  ruler,  his  authority  being  ac- 
cepted by  all  the  members  of  the  family.  The 
patriarchate  was  a  late  development  of  the  family, 
the  result  of  a  long  process  of  evolution.  We  are 
not  concerned,  however,  with  the  theories  of  the 
evolution  of  marriage  and  family  relations  which 
have  given  rise  to  so  much  controversy. 

It  Is,  perhaps,  well  to  insist  with  some  emphasis 
that  there  Is  no  Socialist  theory  of  the  evolution  of 
marriage  and  the  family.  Marx  and  Engels  — 
particularly  the  latter  —  accepted,  almost  without 
reserve,  the  views  of  Lewis  H.  Morgan,  that  great 
American  so  little  honored  by  his  own  countrymen. 
Engels,  as  Is  well  known,  made  Morgan's  views 
the  basis  of  his  monograph.  The  Origin  of  the 
Family,  Private  Property  and  the  State.  In  his 
preface  to  the  fourth  edition  of  this  work,  pub- 
lished in  1 89 1,  Engels  notes  that  Morgan  criticizes 
capitalist  society  with  Its  production  for  profit 
rather  than  for  use  "  In  a  manner  savoring  of 
Fourier,"  and  that  he  "  speaks  of  a  future  re- 
organization   of   society    in    language    that    Karl 


Socialism  and  the  State  47 

Marx  might  have  used."  It  is  at  least  possible 
that  this  leaning  toward  Socialism  displayed  in 
Morgan's  great  work  influenced  Marx  and  Engels, 
and  that  it  accounts  in  some  degree  for  their  en- 
thusiasm over  his  theories. 

Be  that  how  it  may,  it  is  —  in  view  of  certain 
tendencies  In  the  Socialist  movement  In  the  United 
States  and  elsewhere  —  well  to  emphasize  the  fact 
that  the  philosophy  of  Socialism  does  not  Involve 
acceptance  of  Morgan's  theories,  even  though 
they  were  so  unreservedly  accepted  by  the  greatest 
of  Socialist  philosophers.  It  would  be  most  un- 
fortunate if  there  should  be  added  to  the  crippling 
restraints  of  an  "  orthodox  "  Marxism,  which  so 
many  of  our  ablest  and  best  minds  are  trying  to 
break,  a  new  orthodoxy  In  this  sphere  of  sociologi- 
cal study.  There  is  much  in  Morgan's  Ancient 
Society  and  in  the  little  monograph  by  Engels 
which  is  profoundly  true  and  important,  but  they 
must  not  be  regarded  as  Inspired  and  infallible 
scriptures.  Marx's  Das  Kapital  has  so  often  been 
called  "  the  Bible  of  the  working  class  "  that  we 
are  prone  to  forget  that  Its  Influence  for  good 
ceases  when  it  Is  so  regarded  by  the  workers. 
Neither  Das  Kapital  nor  Ancient  Society  Is  to  be 
regarded  as  a  sacred  book. 

Morgan  traces  the  development  of  the  family 
out  of  a  state  of  unrestricted  sex  relationships, 
through   consanguinity,    to   the   stage   where   bar- 


48  Applied  Socialism 

riers  against  Incest  are  raised,  and  the  maternal 
gentes  appear  with  Important  restrictions  upon  In- 
breeding and  the  development  of  well-regulated 
group  marriage  takes  place.  The  matriarchate 
weakens  as  monogamous  marriage  develops,  and 
the  economic  supremacy  of  the  male  sex  rapidly 
Increases  Its  power  und  authority.  With  this  de- 
velopment of  a  monogamous  basis  for  marriage 
and  the  family  the  patriarchate  is  attained.  Side 
by  side  with  these  developments  there  was  the 
evolution  of  the  gentes  Into  phratries,  and,  later, 
tribes. 

Back  of  this  process  of  evolution  was  the  great 
economic  urge,  so  clearly  shown  by  both  Morgan 
and  Engels.  Probably  the  greatest  force  leading 
to  the  establishment  of  the  patriarchal  family 
based  upon  monogamous  marriage  was  the  de- 
velopment of  slavery  and  other  forms  of  private 
property,  and  the  resulting  desire  for  a  system 
of  inheritance  resting  upon  undisputed  parentage. 
Here  we  have  a  probable  explanation  of  the  fact 
that,  universally  in  civilized  states,  monogamous 
relations  are  much  more  rigidly  Imposed  upon 
women  than  upon  men.  The  Inheritance  of  ac- 
cumulated wealth  gave  to  the  family  an  Individu- 
ality It  had  never  before  possessed,  and  a  power  of 
Its  own  distinct  and  separate  from  that  of  the 
gentile  organizations.  It  also  gave  rise  to  the 
first  rudiments  of  a  hereditary  ruling  class.     More 


Socialism  and  the  State  49 

than  this,  it  seized  upon  the  power  of  the  gentile 
and  tribal  organizations  to  make  war  upon  wealth- 
ier tribes.  War  was  waged,  not  as  formerly  from 
motives  of  fear,  hatred  or  revenge  merely,  but  for 
plunder,  for  the  acquisition  of  more  property  — 
more  slaves  and  more  territory. 

Out  of  these  general  conditions  two  great  and 
pressing  problems  arose.  First,  the  tribal  and 
gentile  conception  of  property  as  a  communal 
thing,  an  idea  thousands  of  years  old,  came  into 
conflict  with  the  new  conception  of  property  as  a 
private,  personal  thing.  Second,  the  capture  of 
large  numbers  of  slaves  gave  rise  to  the  need  of 
some  coercive  power  to  keep  them  in  subjection. 
To  protect  private  property  against  the  assaults  of 
those  who  held  to  the  traditional  concept  of  com- 
munal property  and  refused  to  respect  the  newly 
asserted  private  property  rights,  and  to  provide  a 
means  of  keeping  the  captured  slaves  as  a  subject 
class,  the  State  was  necessary. 

The  new  institution  was  developed  partly  by 
transforming  the  gentile  and  tribal  organizations, 
easily  accomplished  through  the  most  powerful 
and  wealthy  families  whose  interests  demanded  it, 
and  partly  through  the  development  of  new  organs, 
such  as  the  armed  public  power  in  the  hands  of  the 
authorities  of  the  State,  a  power  doubtless  origi- 
nally intended  for  use  against  neighboring  tribes, 
a  means  of  defense  and  aggression,  but  soon  used 


50  Applied  Socialism 

against  the  mass  of  the  people  for  the  protection 
of  the  property  interests  of  a  ruHng  class.  Such, 
In  brief  outline,  is  the  probable  course  of  the  de- 
velopment of  the  State. 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  understand  clearly 
what  the  founders  of  modern  Socialist  philosophy 
meant  when  they  '-eferred  so  constantly  to  the 
"  class  nature  "  of  the  State.  The  first  essential 
condition  of  the  State  is  a  public  power  of  coercion 
divorced  from  the  Immediate  control  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  that  power  invariably  becomes  the  means 
whereby  a  ruling  class  imposes  its  will  upon  so- 
ciety. While  the  State  has  always  been  In  a 
sense  the  official  representative  of  all  the  citizens, 
it  has  been  in  a  very  special  and  emphatic  sense 
the  power  by  which  class  rule  has  been  main- 
tained. 

This  is,  of  course,  only  another  way  of  saying 
that  government  has  always  existed  primarily  to 
protect  and  preserve  property  rights.  In  the  early 
State  the  dominant  Interest  was  that  of  the  slave- 
owning  class;  In  the  mediaeval  State  the  dominant 
Interest  was  that  of  the  feudal  lords ;  to-day,  de- 
spite our  theoretical  democracy,  the  interests  of 
the  capitalist  class  are  the  chief  concern  of  the 
State.  Macaulay's  aphorism  that  "  Law  was 
made  for  property  alone  "  expresses  a  profound 
truth  to  which  every  page  of  human  history  bears 
witness.     Only  when  we  read  history  In  the  light 


Socialism  and  the  State  5^ 

of  the  theory  that  it  Is  essentially  a  history  of  class 
struggles  can  we  understand  its  movement. 

The  State  of  to-day  is  a  class-serving  institution, 
as  the  State  of  every  epoch  in  history  has  been. 
In  the  great  world-struggle,  progress  is  attained 
through  the  overthrow  of  old  dominant  classes  and 
the  rise  of  new  ones.  Whenever  a  new  class  chal- 
lenges the  power  and  supremacy  of  the  existing 
ruling  class  it  seeks  to  capture  the  State.  There 
are  two  principal  reasons  for  this:  the  first  Is 
that  the  new  class  seeks  to  acquire  the  coercive 
powers  of  the  State  In  order  that  it  may  use  them 
to  defend  Its  particular  Interests;  the  second  Is 
that  It  seeks  to  legalize  Its  own  acts  to  give  the 
sanction  of  Law  and  the  State  to  its  claims.  As 
the  capitalist  class  wrested  the  control  of  the  State 
from  the  feudal  nobility,  so  the  proletariat  In  Its 
turn  is  seeking  to  capture  the  State  to  serve  Its 
special  interests. 

At  this  point  we  come  to  a  rather  startling 
proposition  in  the  classlcllteratureof  Socialism,  one 
that  has  caused  many  difiicultles  to  honest  minds 
and  provoked  a  vast  amount  of  discussion.  Engels 
states  it  with  characteristic  force  In  the  third  sec- 
tion of  his  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific.  The 
proposition  Is  that  the  proletariat  "  seizes  political 
power  and  turns  the  means  of  production  Into 
State  property.  But,  in  doing  this,  It  abolishes 
itself  as  proletariat,  abolishes  all  class  distinctions, 


^2  jpplied  Socialism 

abolishes  also  the  State  as  State."  Later  Engels 
qualifies  this  somewhat  by  saying,  "  The  State  is 
not  '  abolished.'     It  dies  out." 

Now,  what  is  meant  here  by  the  abolition  of 
the  State,  or  by  the  State  dying  out?  When  Bebel 
was  asked  in  the  Reichstag  on  one  occasion  to  give 
some  idea  of  the  Socialist  State,  he  replied,  "  In 
the  future  we  do  not  want  any  State  at  all  I  "  It 
is  not  surprising  that  many  persons  conceived  the 
idea  that  he  meant  to  convey  the  impression  of  a 
state  of  anarchy ;  that  organized  government  would 
have  no  place  in  the  society  of  the  future.  In 
much  the  same  way,  the  unfortunate  phrase  "  the 
abolition  of  capital,"  so  frequently  occurring  in  So- 
cialist literature,  has  bewildered  many  and  made 
necessary  innumerable  explanations  that  Socialists 
have  no  intention  to  destroy  the  things  which  we 
call  "  capital,"  but  only  the  peculiar  social  rela- 
tions expressed  through  them,  the  social  quality  in 
them,  which  in  their  own  technical  vocabulary  the 
Socialists  call  "  capital." 

It  is  certain  that  when  Engels  spoke  of  the 
State  being  abolished  or  dying  out,  he  had  in  mind 
the  disappearance  of  its  special  quality  as  an  in- 
strument of  class  rule,  and  not  the  disappearance 
of  organized  government  itself.  He  regarded  the 
use  of  its  coercive  functions  by  a  ruling  class  as 
the  very  essence  of  a  State.  His  reasoning  is  very 
simple :     The  essential  quality  of  the  State  is  the 


Socialism  and  the  State  53 

coercive  power  in  the  hands  of  a  ruling  class,  by 
which  it  keeps  the  proletariat  in  subjection.  When 
the  proletariat  seizes  upon  this  power  and  wrests 
it  from  the  grasp  of  the  class  which  uses  it  to 
maintain  its  power  to  exploit  the  workers  it  will 
at  once  cease  to  be  used  for  that  purpose.  The 
State  will  be  given  a  new  function  by  its  proletarian 
conquerors,  namely,  the  ownership  and  manage- 
ment of  the  great  social  forces  of  production. 
When  these  are  used  for  the  common  good  of  all, 
there  ceases  to  be  a  class  division  in  society.  The 
proletariat  itself  is  no  longer  a  proletariat,  and 
there  is  no  exploiting  class.  The  essential  prin- 
ciple of  the  State,  the  coercive  power  in  the  hands 
of  a  ruling  class,  no  longer  exists.  The  State, 
in  the  special  sense  defined  by  Engels,  ceases  to 
exist. 

That  this  is  what  Engels  meant  is  made  abun- 
dantly clear  by  the  context.  It  is  obvious  that  when 
he  says  that  the  proletariat,  having  secured  con- 
trol of  the  State,  "  abolishes  itself  as  proletariat," 
he  does  not  contemplate  wholesale  felo  de  se  on 
the  part  of  millions  of  wage-workers.  It  Is  clear 
that  he  refers  to  the  abolition  of  a  certain  social 
status  or  relation.  And  just  as  it  is  clear  that  he 
does  not  mean  wholesale  felo  de  se,  so  it  is  like- 
wise clear  that  when  he  speaks  of  the  proletariat 
abolishing  the  State,  or  of  the  State  dying  out,  he 
is  far  from  contemplating  the   disappearance  of 


54  Applied  Socialism 

organized  government  and  the  triumph  of  political 
Nihilism. 

He  speaks,  for  example,  of  the  diminishing  of 
State  Interference  with  social  relations  which  must 
follow  when  the  State  ceases  to  be  the  representa- 
tive of  class  Interests,  saying :  "  the  government 
of  persons  Is  replaced  by  the  administration  of 
things,  and  by  the  conduct  of  the  processes  of  pro- 
dii,ction."  Evidently  he  contemplates  the  existence 
of  an  organized  government  to  carry  on  the  "  ad- 
ministration of  things  "  for  social  well-being,  and 
to  conduct  the  "  processes  of  production."  Even 
here,  however,  his  language  Is  unfortunately  quite 
obscure.  How  can  there  be  an  *'  administration 
of  things  "  by  the  government,  and  how  can  there 
be  government  "  conduct  of  the  processes  of  pro- 
duction "  without  some  "  government  of  persons  "  ? 
How  can  things  be  administered  without  govern- 
ment of  persons?  What  Is  meant  by  the  "  ad- 
ministration of  things,"  if  not  the  regulation  of 
human  relations  established  through  the  medium 
of  the  things?  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of 
any  government  of  production  which  does  not  in- 
volve some  government  of  the  producers. 

It  can  scarcely  be  questioned  by  anyone  who  has 
given  the  subject  serious  consideration  that  the 
State  to-day  has  to  interfere  with  individual 
liberty  to  a  much  greater  extent  than  would  be 
necessary  in  a  Socialist  regime,  popular  notions  to 


Socialism  and  the  State  55 

the  contrary  notwithstanding.  "  Government  of 
persons  "  In  this  sense  would,  we  are  justified  In 
believing,  be  greatly  reduced.  But  it  is  hardly  con- 
ceivable that  it  would  wholly  disappear,  as  might 
be  inferred  from  the  prediction  by  Engels  that  it 
would  be  "  replaced  "  by  something  else,  namely, 
the  government  of  things. 

In  spite  of  the  obscurities  of  his  language,  the 
essential  thought  of  Engels  is  manifestly  that  ex- 
pressed in  the  foregoing  paragraphs.  He  re- 
garded many  of  the  coercive  features  of  the  pres- 
ent State  as  being  rendered  necessary  by  the 
fundamental  nature  of  the  capitalist  system,  pro- 
duction for  profit.  The  triumph  of  Socialism,  he 
reasoned,  would  of  necessity  greatly  extend  the 
scope  of  personal  freedom.  With  that  general 
conclusion  every  Socialist  will  readily  agree. 

The  cardinal  defect  In  the  conception  of  the 
State  upon  which  Engels  based  his  conclusions  — 
a  defect  that  is  emphasized  In  the  case  of  M. 
Gabriel  Deville  ^  and  some  other  Socialist  writers 
—  lies  In  the  fact  that  the  definition  of  the  State 
is  too  narrow  to  be  true.  It  is  Incomplete  and, 
therefore,  misleading.  It  Is  perfectly  true  that  one 
of  the  leading  characteristics  of  the  State  In  all 

1 1  refer  here  to  M.  Deville,  because  his  pamphlet,  Socialism, 
Internationalism  and  the  State,  is  very  well  known  to  English 
and  American  students  of  Socialism.  It  must,  however,  be 
added  that  M.  Deville  is  not  now  in  any  manner  connected 
with  the  Socialist  movement. 


56  Applied  Socialism 

ages  has  been  the  use  of  its  coercive  powers  by  a 
ruhng  class  to  protect  its  special  interests,  but  that 
is  not  the  only  characteristic.  In  all  ages  the  State 
has  exercised  non-coercive  and  non-repressive 
functions,  the  scope  and  importance  of  which  have 
constantly  expanded. 

If  the  State  in  ftudal  times  kept  the  serfs  in 
subjection,  even  if  that  became  its  principal  func- 
tion, it  is  nevertheless  true  that,  at  the  same  time, 
it  rendered  the  serf  some  service,  as,  for  example, 
protecting  him  and  his  family  from  the  assaults  of 
the  lawless  and  violent  robber  hordes  which  in- 
fested the  country.  Unquestionably,  one  of  the 
principal  objects  of  the  State  to-day  is  the  pres- 
ervation of  capitalistic  property.  The  State  is  a 
class  instrument,  and  maintenance  of  class  rule  is 
its  manifest  and  avowed  purpose.  At  the  same 
time,  however,  we  must  not  forget  that  it  serves 
many  other  functions.  While  it  does  maintain 
the  subjection  of  the  workers  to  the  capitalist  class, 
it  does  much  else  which  is  quite  distinct  from  and 
independent  of  that.  In  the  large  body  of  so- 
cial legislation,  much  of  it  restrictive  of  the  ex- 
ploiting powers  of  the  capitalist  class,  as,  for  in- 
stance, a  great  deal  of  our  factory  legislation,  we 
see  the  State  assuming  functions  which  cannot  be 
regarded  as  coercing  or  repressing  the  wage-work- 
ers, even  by  the  utmost  stretch  of  the  imagination 
of  the  most  prejudiced  Anarchist. 


Socialism  and  the  State  57 

While  carefully  refraining  from  indulgence  in 
that  too  literal  application  of  biological  laws  and 
analogies  which  has  brought  so  much  discredit  to 
the  so-called  "  biological  sociology,"  ^  we  may 
safely  assert  that  the  biologic  law  of  adaptation 
to  its  environment  has  its  sociological  counterpart. 
It  is  not  only  in  biology  that  "  the  organism  must 
conform  to  the  mold  established  for  it  by  its  en- 
vironment." In  the  case  of  social  and  political 
institutions,  as  well  as  in  the  domain  of  biology, 
there  is  a  force  or  law  which  compels  the  organism 
to  undergo  such  modifications  and  transformations 
as  will  secure  its  conformity  to  the  conditions 
which  make  its  environment.  Marx  and  Engels, 
and  their  followers  generally,  have  recognized  this 
fact;  indeed,  that  recognition  is  fundamental  to 
their  philosophy. 

It  Is  in  conformity  with  this  law  that  we  see  the 
modern  State  continually  passing  through  a  proc- 
ess of  transformation  through  the  enlargement  of 
Its  functions.  Herbert  Spencer  long  ago  pointed 
out  the  fact  that  the  State  has  assumed  many  of 
the  functions  formerly  belonging  to  the  Individual 
or  to  the  family.-  We  see  the  State  of  to-day 
charging  Itself  with  a  multitude  of  social  respon- 

1  Cf.  Albion  W.  Small,  General  Sociology,  pp.  74-80,  for  a 
suggestive  discussion  of  this. 

-  See,  e.  g..  Principles  of  Sociology.  Vol.  I,  Part  III,  pp.  709- 
712. 


^8  Applied  Socialism 

siblllties  and  services  which  formerly  were  left  to 
the  family  or  to  individual  enterprise.  It  assumes 
responsibility  for  educating  the  child,  for  safe- 
guarding its  health  and  morals,  for  nursing  it  in 
sickness  and  for  providing  it  with  facilities  and 
opportunities  for  play.  Without  losing  its  special- 
class  characteristics,  tne  modern  State  becomes  im- 
pregnated with  a  social  spirit  and  purpose,  and  is 
continually  extending  its  functions  in  response  to 
that  spirit  and  to  serve  that  purpose. 

Mr.  John  Martin,  a  keen  observer,  has,  with- 
out recognizing  the  vital  distinction  between  Social- 
ism and  mere  public  ownership  emphasized  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  given  an  interesting  summary 
of  what  he  conceives  to  be  the  Communistic  ac- 
complishments of  the  United  States  Government, 
in  an  article  entitled  Socialism  in  Action  in  Amer- 
ica.^ He  instances  among  other  examples,  the 
work  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  and  the 
aid  it  renders  to  farmers  by  the  introduction  of 
new  crops,  experiments  with  seeds,  fertilizers, 
methods  of  cultivation  and  so  on,  as  well  as  by  in- 
structions to  farmers  upon  all  these  and  many  other 
matters,  organized  warfare  upon  parasitic  pests, 
plant  and  animal  diseases  and  the  like.  He  points 
also  to  the  immense  irrigation  works  carried  on 
under  the  Reclamation  Act  —  canals  which  would 

iln  The  Socialist  Review  (London),  Vol.  II,  No.  9,  Novem- 
ber, 1908. 


Socialism  and  the  State  59 

stretch  across  Europe,  with  dams  comparable  with 
the  great  dams  of  the  Nile  Valley.  Millions  of 
acres  of  land  have  been  reclaimed  and  irrigated, 
providing  homes  and  sustenance  for  millions  of 
people.  Hundreds  of  miles  of  roadways  have 
been  constructed,  tunnels  excavated  and  other 
stupendous  works  undertaken.  To  these  great  en- 
terprises must  be  added  the  reservation  of  Immense 
forest  areas,  coal  and  oil  lands,  water  power,  and 
other  natural  resources,  in  the  Interest  of  future 
generations. 

To  resort  once  more  to  biological  analogy,  the 
modern  State  develops  new  organs  to  meet  Its  new 
needs.  In  place  of  the  old  la'issez  faire  spirit  we 
have  an  Increasing  recognition  and  acceptance  of 
social  responsibility.  The  State  which  cares  for 
the  hygiene  of  the  homes  of  its  citizens,  provides 
them  with  free  education,  libraries,  art  galleries, 
museums,  parks,  and  a  multitude  of  other  oppor- 
tunities for  richer  life  and  thought;  which  places 
restrictions  upon  Its  capitalists  In  the  Interest  of 
its  wage-workers,  and  even  looks  ahead  and  recog- 
nizes an  obligation  to  posterity,  legislating  for  the 
conservation  of  natural  resources  and  so  restrain- 
ing the  capitalist  of  to-day  in  the  interest  of  the 
citizen  of  to-morrow,  Is  no  mere  Instrument  of 
class  rule.  It  Is  rapidly  developing  the  necessary 
organism  for  the  realization  of  Socialism. 

To  sum  up:     What  we  are  witnessing  is  not 


6o  Applied  Socialism 

the  decay  of  the  State,  but  its  development  to  in- 
creased usefulness,  its  adaptation  to  the  require- 
ments of  society  as  a  whole.  It  is  becoming  more 
and  more  social  in  its  nature,  assuming  larger 
control  than  ever  before  over  the  economic  forces, 
the  great  primary  sources  of  life.  The  essentials 
of  the  Socialist  Stat'^;  are  thus  being  developed 
within  the  existing  capitalist  State.  What  we 
have  to  look  forward  to,  therefore,  is  not  the  dis- 
appearance of  the  State,  either  through  its  for- 
cible abolition,  its  dissolution  or  decay,  but  the  com- 
plete disappearance  of  its  special  function  as  an 
instrument  of  class  rule  and  oppression.  That 
is  what  Engels  meant  by  the  abolition  or  death  of 
the  State,  and  it  will  result,  as  he  wisely  predicted, 
from  the  conquest  of  the  State  by  the  proletariat. 
But  the  State  itself  will  remain. 


Ill 

THE   SOCIALIST   STATE 

THE  view  of  the  State  outlined  in  the  last 
chapter  is  essentially  the  one  held  by  that 
great  Socialist,  Wilhelm  Liebknecht. 
Speaking  at  the  Erfurt  convention  of  the  German 
Social  Democracy,  in  October,  1891,  introducing 
the  programme  which  was  then  unanimously 
adopted,  he  referred  to  the  controversies  concern- 
ing the  use  of  the  word  "  State  "  to  designate  the 
Socialist  form  of  society  as  "  a  pure  strife  of 
words."  He  emphasized  the  thought  that  oppres- 
sion and  exploitation  are  not  necessarily  involved 
in  the  concept  of  a  State.  There  is,  therefore, 
good  authority  for  disregarding  the  odium  at- 
tached to  the  teiTn  in  the  classic  literature  of  So- 
cialism, and  speaking  freely  of  the  *'  Socialist 
State." 

Objections  may  be  raised  by  those  pedantic 
more-Marxist-than-Marx  "  Marxists  "  to  be  found 
in  the  Socialist  movement  of  every  country,  who 
think  the  use  of  the  word  "  State  "  a  denial  of 
Socialism.  Objection  may  also  be  made  by  those 
latter  day  Utopians,   the   "  Syndicalists "  of  the 

61 


62  Applied  Socialism 

Latin  countries,  who  manage  somehow  to  believe 
that  the  State  will  soon  become  obsolete,  and  that 
the  proletariat  will  secure  control  of  the  means  of 
wealth  production  without  the  intervention  of  the 
State  or  parliamentarianism,  but  solely  through  the 
agency  of  the  labor  unions.  In  this  study  we  need 
not  pay  any  attention  to  these  objectors.  The 
former  class  is  vociferous,  but  numerically  weak 
and  insignificant,  while  "  Syndicalism  "  is,  even  in 
Europe,  little  more  than  a  brilliant  and  daring 
literary  interpretation  of  the  old  labor  unionism. 

So,  instead  of  saying  that  Socialism  presupposes 
the  abolition  of  the  State,  or  its  dissolution,  we 
shall  disregard  the  example  of  Engels  and  his 
numerous  followers  and  say  that  Socialism  pre- 
supposes the  continuance  of  the  State  and  Its  fur- 
ther development;  the  disappearance  of  its  special 
characteristics  as  an  agency  of  class  rule,  and  the 
development  of  Its  social  character  to  the  point 
where  it  becomes  thoroughly  democratized  and  so- 
cialized, the  representative  of  all  the  people. 

At  first  sight  this  appears  to  be  a  violently  con- 
tradictory proposition,  but  It  Is  not  so  in  reality. 
As  we  have  seen,  the  present  State  Is  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  simple  machine  of  class  oppression 
which  Engels  had  In  mind  when  he  spoke  of  the 
State  as  doomed  to  extinction  as  a  result  of  the 
conquest  of  its  powers  by  the  proletariat.  The 
State  Is  continually  extending  its  functions  In  other 


The  Socialist  State  63 

directions,  and  becoming  more  and  more  the  serv- 
ant and  representative  of  society  as  a  whole.  The 
process  of  democratization,  or,  what  Is  a  better 
name  for  the  same  thing,  socialization,  Is  not  some- 
thing which  we  fondly  imagine  will  take  place  at 
some  future  time.  It  is  a  movement_whi£h_is_go- 
ing^onjloWj^  before  our  eyes.  (^We  are  living  in  an 
age  of  transition,  and  blind  indeed  must  one  be 
who  cannot  discern  the  movement  toward  a  com- 
pletely socialized  State.  Y 

This  reasoning  forces  us  to  the  creation  of  some 
mental  picture  of  the  Socialist  State.  Avoiding 
the  temptation  to  paint  Utopian  pictures,  and 
keeping  ourselves  strictly  within  the  boundaries 
of  scientific  method,  we  must  summarize  the  fun- 
damental requirements  of  the  Socialist  State.  In 
other  words,  w^  reach  _the  point  where  we  must 
face  the  fact  that_certain  conditions  must  be  ful- 
filled before  It  will  be  possible  to  speak  of  Social- 
Ism    In^  the   present   tense,    as a_goai    attained. 

What,  then,  are  those  conditions? 

Let  us  take  some  of  the  numerous  definitions  of 
Socialism,  and  see  how  far.  If  at  all,  they  help  us 
to  outline  the  fundamental  requirements  of  the  So- 
cialist State,  and  wherein  they  fail.  When  Proud- 
hon  was  asked,  in  1848,  "  What  Is  Socialism?  "  he 
replied,  "  Every  aspiration  towards  the  ameliora- 
tion of  society."  That  was  not,  It  must  be  con-\ 
fessed,  a  very  helpful  or  illuminating  definition,     i 


64  Applied  Socialism 

The  same  may  be  said  of  Adolf  Held's  famous  defi- 
nition of  Socialism  as  "  Every  tendency  which  de- 
mands any  kind  of  subordination  of  the  individual 
will  to  the  community  " —  a  very  curious  defini- 
tion ! 

The  great  Dictionary  of  the  Academie  Fran- 
qaise  defines  Socialism  as  "  The  doctrine  of  men 
who  pretend  to  change  the  State,  and  to  reform 
it,  on  an  altogether  new  plan."  Littre's  definition 
is  no  better  than  this,  for  he  defines  it  as  "  A  sys- 
tem which,  regarding  political  reforms  as  of  sub- 
ordinate importance,  offers  a  plan  of  social  re- 
form." Leroux,  often  erroneously  credited  with 
being  the  inventor  of  the  word,  but  certainly  one 
of  the  first  to  make  it  popular,  declares  Socialism 
to  be  "  A  political  organization  in  which  the  in- 
dividual is  sacrificed  to  society."  Professor  Flint, 
in  a  ponderous  critique  ^  remarkable  mainly  on  ac- 
count of  its  obliquity  and  bias,  from  which  the 
foregoing  definitions  are  quoted,  gives  this  queer 
definition:  "Any  theory  of  social  organization 
which  sacrifices  the  legitimate  liberties  of  the  indi- 
vidual to  the  will  or  interests  of  the  community." 
Professor  Flint's  animus  and  consequent  disqualifi- 
cation to  be  seriously  considered  is  clearly  mani- 
fested by  his  use  of  the  word  "  legitimate."  His 
"  definition  "  is  not  an  attempt  to  describe  im- 
partially and  accurately  the  meaning  of  the  word, 

1  Flint,  Socialism,  Chap.  I. 


The  Socialist  State  65 

but  an  epitome  of  his  own  unfavorable  opinion  of 
the  thing  itself.  Twenty  years'  association  with 
Sociahsts  in  various  lands  has  failed  to  bring  me 
into  contact  with  a  single  one  who  would  accept 
that  stupid  definition  as  an  approximately  correct 
description  of  his  belief. 

In  a  famous  debate  with  Charles  Bradlaugh, 
H.  M.  Hyndman,  the  English  Socialist  leader, 
gave  a  definition  of  Socialism  which  has  been  ex- 
tensively quoted.  He  said:  "  Socialism  is  an  en- 
deavor to  substitute  for  the  anarchical  struggle  or 
fight  for  existence  an  organized  cooperation  for 
existence."  While  this  may  be  accepted  as  a  fairly 
accurate  description  of  the  purpose  which  inspires 
every  Socialist,  it  does  not  materially  aid  us  in  our 
present  inquiry.  It  defines  for  us  the  spirit  In 
which  the  Socialists  are  laboring,  but  it  does  not 
create  for  us  even  the  suggestion  of  a  picture  of 
the  social  and  economic  organization  of  the  So- 
cialist State. 

Mr.  Bradlaugh,  in  that  memorable  debate,  gave 
a  very  definite  picture  of  the  Socialist  State  as  he 
conceived  it.  He  said :  "  Socialism  denies  private 
property  and  affirms  that  society  organized  as  the 
State  should  own  all  wealth,  direct  all  labor  and 
compel  the  equal  distribution  of  all  produce." 
This  definition  has  the  great  merit  of  being  very 
positive.  It  sketches  with  a  few  bold  strokes  a 
well-defined    picture.     But    the    picture    has    this 


66  Applied  Socialism 

grave  defect :  Not  one  Socialist  in  a  million  would 
acknowledge  it  as  bearing  any  semblance  to  the 
ideal  at  which  all  Socialists  aim.  The  principles 
outlined  by  Mr.  Bradlaugh  bear  little  or  no  re- 
lation to  the  principles  in  which  so  many  millions 
of  Socialists  believe.  Mr,  Bradlaugh's  definition 
cqntains  the  following  concrete  propositions : 

/  (i)  Under  Socialism  private  property  will  be  forbidden; 
(2)  Under  Socialism  the  State  will  own  all  wealth  and 
direct  all  labor; 

^  (3)  Under  Socialism  the  State  will  compel  the  equal  dis- 
tribution of   all   produce. 

While  there  may  have  been  some  among  the  early 
Utopian  Socialists  who  believed  in  an  infinite  and 
perfect  State,  such  as  Mr.  Bradlaugh  describes, 
it  is  safe  to  say  that  no  representative  Socialist 
anywhere  in  the  world  would  accept  this  definition. 
Much  better,  though  far  from  perfect,  is  John 
Stuart  Mill's  famous  definition:  "  Sodalism  is  any 
system  which  requires  that  the  land  and  the  instru- 
ment's"bf  productTon  shouT3~be  tKe~propertyrnot 
oTTndividuals,  but  of  communities  or  associations, 
orofthe  government."  Its  chiefmerit  lies  in 
the  fact  that  it  includes  ownership  of  the  means  of 
production  by  voluntary  cooperative  associations, 
as  well  as  government  ownership,  in  its  conception 
of  the  socialization  of  industry.  Its  gravest  de- 
fect lies  in  the  fact  that  it  conveys  the  idea  that 
government  ownership  is  synonymous  with  Social- 


The  Socialist  State  67 

ism ;  that  the  ownership  of  the  land  and  the  means 
of  production  by  the  government  constitutes  So- 
ciahsm,  quite  irrespective  of  the  nature  of  the 
government. 

Many  years  ago  the  English  Social  Democratic 
Federation  adopted  a  brief  statement  of  its  ob- 
ject, which  has  ever  since  been  used  as  a  definition 
of  Socialism.  It  has  been  quoted  in  innumerable 
Socialist  pamphlets  and  leaflets,  and  the  tacit  ap- 
proval implied  thereby  has  made  it  in  a  sense  a 
historic  official  definition  of  Socialism.  It  reads  as 
follows :  "  The  social  ownership  and  control  of 
all  the  means  of  production,  distribution  and  ex- 
change." The  importance  of  this  definition 
centers  around  that  little  word  "  all."  If  we  are 
to  accept  it  literally,  the  definition  means  that  the 
private  ownership  of  anything  which  might  be 
used  as  a  means  of  production,  distribution  or  ex- 
change would  be  impossible  in  the  Socialist  State. 

But  the  members  of  the  Social  Democratic 
Federation  never  took  that  statement  of  their  ob- 
ject literally.  Jack-knives  and  needles  are,  under 
certain  conditions,  means  of  production  as  surely 
as  are  the  costliest  and  most  powerful  machines 
in  a  modern  factory.  A  market  basket  is,  under 
certain  conditions,  a  means  of  transportation  as 
surely  as  a  railroad  train  is.  The  difference  is  a 
difference  in  the  degree  of  efficiency,  not  in  the  kind 
of  service  performed.     Social  or  collective  owner- 


68  Applied  Socialism 

ship  and  management  of  jack-knives,  needles  and 
market  baskets  is  beyond  the  pale  of  serious  dis- 
cussion. Realizing  this,  the  speakers  of  the  So- 
cial Democratic  Federation  used  to  devote  a  con- 
siderable part  of  their  propaganda  to  the  task  of 
assuring  their  hearers  that  nothing  of  the  sort  was 
contemplated.  Obviously,  the  formal  statement 
of  their  object  was  misleading.  It  said  that  they 
were  aiming  at  the  collective  ownership  of  all 
means  of  production,  distribution  and  exchange, 
but  in  lectures  and  addresses  it  was  explained  that, 
although  the  formal  statement  said  all,  only  the 
collective  ownership  and  control  of  some  was 
meant. 

After  thus  criticizing  the  several  definitions  of 
Socialism  quoted,  we  are  naturally  expected  to  pro- 
vide a  more  satisfactory  one.  But,  easy  as  it  is  to 
criticize  definitions  that  are  obviously  defective,  it 
is  not  an  easy  matter  to  formulate  a  perfectly  sat- 
isfactory substitute.  Socialism  seems  too  big,  too 
inclusive,  for  definition.  No  definition  of  Social- 
ism can  be  satisfactory  which  does  not  treat  of  it 
as  (i)  a  theory  of  social  evolution;  (2)  a  social 
ideal,  or  forecast;  (3)  a  conscious  movement  aimed 
at  the  realization  of  that  ideal. 

So  we  may  define  Socialism  as  "  A  theory  of  so- 
^ial_^vohiti(^^ 

maimer  of  social  progress  are_mainly  conditioned 
by  the  development  of  the  methods  of  production ; 


The  Socialist  State  69 

an  ideal  of  society,  believed  to  bej:]ie  next  stage 
in  so"narevorutTon,lrrwHrcirtRe  present  exploita- 
Tlon  of  class  by  class  has  no^ace^tRe^jprqduction 
"and  dTstnbutiorr  ot  "wedtjilbeing^arried^  oi^_?9^ 
~~tHe  common  good;  a  practical jmoyement,  largely 
but  not  wKolly  confined  to  the^  members  of  the 
^pToite^  class  in  present  society,  which  seets  jto 
obtain  control  of  thelnac]hjjT£ry_of  government  Jo 
"brmg^lBouf  the  ideal  social  State/' 
"TTiis  definition  is  far  more  satisfactory  than  any 
of  the  others  quoted,  but  it  leaves  much  unsaid, 
many  important  questions  unanswered.     Will  the 
Socialist  State  be  democratic,  oligarchic,  or  bureau- 
cratic?    Will  it  be  monarchical  or  republican  in  its 
form?     How  will  industry  be  organized  to  serve 
the  common  interest,  instead  of  the  interest  of  the 
few  as  at  present?     How  will  the  remuneration  of 
labor  be  determined?     These  and  a  multitude  of 
similar  questions  crowd  the  brain  when  we  con- 
template this  definition. 

Most  of  us  recognize  in  a  general  way  that 
democracy  and  Socialism  are  inseparably  linked 
together.  There  cannnot  be  a  Socialist  despotism 
any  more  than  there  can  be  a  light  darkness  or  a 
white  blackness.  But  suppose  that  someone 
should  tell  us  that  the  Socialist  State  might  be  a 
monarchy;  that  a  descendant  of  King  Edward  VII 
may  some  day  occupy  the  throne  of  a  Socialist 
kingdom  of  Great   Britain?     Probably  most  So- 


70  Applied  Socialism 

cialists  would  regard  the  suggestion  as  grotesquely 
impossible.  We  have  somehow  regarded  it  as 
axiomatic  that  the  Socialist  State  must  be  a  re- 
public. But  it  was  not  so  to  the  Socialists  of  an 
earlier  generation.  As  Mr.  Hillquit  reminds  us, 
both  Saint  Simon  and  Fourier  regarded  a  consti- 
tutional monarchy  as  quite  compatible  with  So- 
cialism, as  also  did  Karl  Rodbertus  and  Ferdinand 
Lassalle.^ 

Twenty-five  or  thirty  years  ago  practically  all 
the  Socialists  of  Europe  held  the  view,  so  well  ex- 
pressed by  Benoit  Malon,  that,  "  since  the  repub- 
lic is  the  political  form  of  human  dignity,  the 
states  which  will  be  founded  by  emancipated  na- 
tions can  only  be  republican."  ^  It  was  generally 
believed  that  the  overthrow  of  monarchical  gov- 
ernment and  the  establishment  of  republican  gov- 
ernment in  its  stead  would  be  the  first  important 
step  towards  the  realization  of  the  Socialist  State. 
The  present  writer  remembers  well  that,  less  than 
twenty  years  ago,  it  was  the  rule  for  Socialists  in 
England  to  attack  the  monarchy  in  their  propa- 
ganda, to  circulate  anti-monarchical  tracts  and 
pamphlets  and  proclaim  the  necessity  of  a  social 
republic. 

But,  while  practically  all  Socialists  are  still  re- 

1  Cf.  Hillquit,  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  p.  137. 

2  Malon,  Precis  de  Socialisme,  p.  297. 


The  Socialist  State  Jl 

publicans  at  heart,  not  much  importance  is  attached 
to  the  form  of  government  nowadays ;  at  least,  not 
in  those  countries  where  the  constitutional  limita- 
tions upon  the  sovereignty  have  robbed  it  of  all  its 
despotic  powers  and  made  the  sovereign  simply  a 
political  figurehead.  Neither  in  England  nor  in 
Germany  do  the  Socialists  of  to-day  seriously  con- 
cern themselves  with  attacks  upon  the  monarchy  or 
attempts  to  create  a  republic.  When  M.  Jean 
Jaures,  the  French  Socialist  leader,  at  the  Inter- 
national Socialist  Congress  at  Amsterdam,  In  1904, 
boasted  of  the  superior  progressiveness  of  the 
French  people,  and  instanced  In  support  of  his 
boast  the  fact  that  France  has  long  been  a  republic, 
he  was  replied  to  by  Herr  Bebel,  the  German  So- 
cialist leader. 

"  As  much  as  we  envy  you  Frenchmen  your  re- 
public," said  Bebel,  "  and  as  much  as  we  wish  it 
for  ourselves,  we  will  not  allow  our  skulls  to  be 
broken  for  It :  it  does  not  deserve  it.  A  capitalist 
monarchy  or  a  capitalist  republic, —  both  are  class 
states,  both  are  necessarily  and  from  their  very 
nature  made  to  maintain  the  capitalist  regime. 
Both  direct  their  entire  strength  in  the  effort  to 
preserve  for  the  capitalist  class  all  the  powers  of 
the  legislature."  ^ 

^  Quoted  by  Hillquit,  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  p. 
138. 


72  Applied  Socialism 

English  Socialists  generally  share  Bebel's  indif- 
ference. There  Is  no  serious  agitation  to  do  away 
with  the  monarchy  on  the  part  of  any  considerable 
number  of  Socialists  in  England.  Just  how  they 
regard  the  reigning  monarch  is  well  illustrated  by 
a  resolution  adopted  by  the  Tunbrldge  Wells 
Branch  of  the  Social  Democratic  Party,  and  pub- 
lished In  the  official  organ  of  that  party,  demand- 
ing "  That  the  King,  as  figurehead  of  the  nation, 
be  requested  to  issue  a  proclamation  dissenting 
from  the  present  anti-German  attitude  exhibited  in 
the  English  press."  ^  The  frank  recognition  of 
the  power  and  influence  of  the  monarch  as  "  the 
figurehead  of  the  nation,"  and  the  idea  of  request- 
ing him  to  act,  by  proclamation,  on  behalf  of  the 
nation,  mark  a  state  of  mind  far  removed  from  the 
passionate  republicanism  of  a  few  years  ago. 

Even  In  Italy  the  same  general  Indifference  upon 
this  question  is  manifested  by  the  Socialists,  and 
that  by  the  most  extreme  section  of  all,  the  Syn- 
dicalists, equally  with  the  more  moderate  sections. 
Arturo  Labriola,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  Syn- 
dicalists, writes:  "  Class  rule  does  not  express 
itself  in  a  monarchical  form  of  government  or  in  a 
republican  form  of  government,  but  In  the  fact  that 
one  group  of  men  exercise  the  political  powers  in 
their  own  Interests.     fVe  must  learn  to  understand 

'^Justice    (London),  August  21,   1909. 


The  Socialist  State  73 

that  there  are  no  political  forms  which  exclude  class 
rule,  nor  such  which  make  it  inevitable."  ^ 

We    may    say,    then,    that    ( i )     the    Socialist 


State  must  be  a  political  democracy,  and  (2)  that, 
while  it  is  probaHe  tHat  the  republican  form  of 

"government    wiTF  be    the    form    most generally 

adopted,  there  is jiothm^Jtp  prevent  the  continu- 
ancci  for  long  periods,  of  constitutional  mon- 
archies.^ 

When  once  we  have  denied  that  Socialism  pre- 
supposes the  abolition  of  private  property  and  the 
centralization  of  all  property  and  means  of  produc- 
tion in  the  hands  of  the  State,  and  have  affirmed 
that  some  things  would  remain  subject  to  private 
ownership  and  control,  this  question  immediately 
arises:  How  will  it  be  determined  which  things 
may  safely  be  permitted  to  remain  in  private  hands, 
and  which  must  be  made  subject  to  ownership  and 
control  by  the  State?  The  question  is  funda- 
mental, inevitable  and  imperative.  It  must  be 
answered  with  candor. 

Two  methods  by  which  an  answer  can  be  arrived 

1  Labriola,  R'lforme  e  R'lvoluz'ione  Sociale,  p.  99.  Quoted  by 
HiLLQUiT,  op.  cit.,  p.  139. 

2  For  fuller  treatment  of  this  subject,  the  reader  is  referred 
to  Hillquit's  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  pp.  1 31-143; 
Anton  Menger's  Neue  Staatslehre,  2d  edition,  pp.  170-200; 
and  the  present  writer's  Socialism,  a  Summary  and  Interpre- 
tation of  Socialist  Principles  (New  and  Revised  Edition,  1909), 
Chap.  IX. 


74  Applied  Socialism 

at  suggest  themselves  to  the  thoughtful  mind. 
The  first  is  by  inventory.  It  might  be  possible  to 
make  a  list  of  the  things  which  we  believe  would 
be  left  subject  to  private  ownership  and  control. 
We  could  begin  with  toothpicks  and  toothbrushes 
and  ladies'  side  combs  and  go  on  until  we  had  com- 
piled a  complete  catalogue  of  the  things  which 
would  be  included  in  the  category  of  private  prop- 
erty under  Socialism. 

The  impracticability  of  this  method  is  so  obvious 
that  it  needs  no  demonstration.  The  difficulties  in- 
herent in  it  are  multitudinous  and  insuperable. 
The  catalogue  would  be  long  and  practically  end- 
less, unless  some  means  could  be  devised  to  prevent 
the  invention  of  new  things  —  and  that  would  be 
undesirable  if  possible.  The  compilation  of  such 
a  catalogue  would  of  necessity  involve  so  many  con- 
tradictions and  mistakes  as  to  make  even  the 
United  States  tariff  schedules  and  Customs  House 
decisions  seem  almost  the  perfection  of  wisdom. 

The  inventory  method,  then,  is  impossible. 
The  other  method  is  to  lay  down  some  principle 
as  the  rule  governing  the  matter.  Instead  of  at- 
tempting to  make  a  list  of  the  things  which  are  to 
be  privately  owned  and  another  list  of  the  things 
which  are  to  be  collectively  owned,  we  can  lay 
down  the  governing  principle  and  say  that  when 
certain  conditions  prevail,  public  ownership  will  be 
the  rule;  when  certain  other  conditions  prevail, 


The  Socialist  State  75 

private  ownership  will  be  the  rule.  Such  a  method 
has  the  great  merit  of  being  in  full  accord  with  the 
fundamental  principles  of  our  jurisprudence. 

Before  attempting  to  formulate  our  governing 
principle,  let  us  see  how  it  must  be  arrived  at.  It 
cannot  be  arbitrarily  laid  down,  simply  the  product 
of  desire.  It  is  useless  to  say,  "  Because  it  ought 
to  be  so,  therefore  it  must  be  so :  let  us  lay  down 
this  or  that  as  our  principle."  That  would  simply 
be  the  old  Utopian  method  over  again.  We  must 
be  guided  by  and  rest  entirely  upon  the  facts  of 
social  evolution. 

Let  us  first  of  all  ask  and  answer  the  question,, 
"  What  is  the  end  and  aim  of  Socialism?  "  Is  it 
to  realize  a  certain  plan,  to  organize  production 
and  distribution  according  to  a  carefully  considered 
scheme?  Evidently,  this  question  can  only  be  an- 
swered in  the  negative,  for  whenever  Socialists  are 
asked  to  describe  the  plan  or  system  they  are  seek- 
ing to  realize  they  at  once  reply  that  Socialism  has 
nothing  in  common  with  such  schemes  for  the  re- 
construction of  society.  "  Socialism  is  not  a  plan 
or  scheme,"  they  say,  "  but  a  method,  a  principle  of 
action." 

As  Engels  has  finely  demonstrated,  the  law  of 
social  evolution  is  not  that  men  consciously  strive 
to  establish  new  systems,  new  arrangements  of  so- 
ciety, carefully  thought  out  in  advance,  but  that 
subject,    oppressed    and    exploited   classes    revolt 


76  Applied  Socialism 

■m 
against   subjection   and   exploitation   and   seek   to 

overthrow  the  dominant,  ruling  classes.  And  the 
real  aim  of  Socialism  is  to  overthrow  class  domina- 
tion, rather  than  to  realize  a  certain  form  of  eco- 
nomic organization.  The  impelling  force  in  the 
Socialist  movement  is  the  class  struggle.  As  I 
have  elsewhere  ^  shown,  the  proposal  to  socialize 
production  and  exchange  is  a  means  to  an  end,  not 
an  end  in  itself.  "  The  wealth  producers  are  ex- 
ploited by  a  class  whose  source  of  income  is  the 
surplus  value  extracted  from  the  workers.  In- 
stinctively, the  workers  struggle  against  that  ex- 
ploitation, to  reduce  the  amount  of  surplus  value 
taken  by  the  capitalists  to  a  minimum.  To  do 
away  with  that  exploitation,  social  ownership  and 
control  is  proposed.  If  the  end  could  be  attained 
more  speedily  by  other  methods,  those  methods 
would  be  adopted.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  to 
make  collective  property  of  things  not  used  as  a 
means  of  exploiting  labor  does  not  necessarily  form 
part  of  the  Socialist  programme."  ^ 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  principle  for  which  we 
have  been  looking.  Wealth,  whether  consisting  of 
goods  for  consumption,  or  of  means  of  production 

1  Socialism,  a  Summary  and  Interpretation  of  Socialist  Prin- 
ciples (New  and  Revised  Edition,  1909),  Chap.  IX;  T/ie  Sub- 
stance of  Socialism  (1909),  Part.  II.  See  also,  my  article  on  the 
subject  in  the  North  American  Revieiv,  June,  1909. 

-Socialism,  a  Summary  and  Interpretation  of  Socialist  Prin- 
ciples   (New  and  Revised  Edition,  1909),  p.  298. 


The  Socialist  State  JJ 

not  used  to  exploit  the  labor  of  others  than  its 
owners,  would  probably  remain  subject  to  private 
ownership.  Generally  speaking,  there  would  be 
no  reason  for  attempting  to  socialize  it.  On  the 
other  hand,  wealth  used  as  means  of  exploitation 
by  its  owners  would  be  socialized  as  rapidly  as  pos- 
sible. It  is  easy  enough  to  see  that,  according  to 
this  principle  of  differentiation,  no  attempt  would 
be  made  to  socialize  the  market  basket,  but  that 
the  railway  system,  as  a  superior  agent  of  transpor- 
tation, would  perforce  have  to  be  socialized;  that 
while  it  would  be  necessary  perhaps  to  socialize 
such  a  means  of  production  as  a  clothing  factory,  it 
would  not  be  necessary  to  interfere  with  the  pri- 
vate ownership  and  operation  of  a  domestic  sewing 
machine. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  numerous  critics  have 
professed  to  find  in  this  principle  of  differentiation 
a  serious  departure  from  the  revolutionary  princi- 
ples of  Marx  and  Engels  and  their  immediate  fol- 
lowers, it  may  be  well  to  emphasize  the  fact  that 
both  Marx  and  Engels  fully  accepted  the  principle, 
which  has  never  been  denied  or  questioned  by  any 
Marxist  of  standing.  For  example,  in  the  Com- 
munist Manifesto,  Marx  and  Engels  wrote,  more 
than  sixty  years  ago;    "  Communism  ^  deprives  no 

1  In  the  Communist  Manifesto  the  word  "Communism"  is 
used  to  describe  what  we  now  call  "  Socialism,"  and  the  latter 
word  to  describe  what  we  nowadays  call  "  Communism." 


78  Applied  Socialism 

man  of  the  power  to  appropriate  the  products  of 
society:  all  that  it  does  is  to  deprive  him  of  the 
power  to  subjugate  the  labor  of  others  by  means  of 
such  appropriation.'* 

Writers  like  Kautsky,^  in  Germany,  Vander- 
velde,^  in  Belgium,  Lafargue,^  in  France,  and  Hill- 
quit,*  in  America,  have  pointed  out  with  equal 
clearness  that  Socialism  is  not  incompatible  with 
private  property,  but  only  with  private  property 
used  as  a  means  of  exploitation.  All  these  writers 
agree  that  there  is  no  foundation  in  fact  for  those 
fantastic  criticisms  of  Socialism  which  assume  that 
the  Socialist  State  would  have  to  forbid  and  sup- 
press all  private  initiative  and  enterprise;  that  it 
would  have  to  take  over  every  small  farm,  every 
milliner's  shop  and  every  small  workshop. 

It  is  Important  to  bear  in  mind  that  wealth  and 
productive  enterprise  to-day  may  be  regarded  as 
being  divided  into   two   great   and   distinct   cate- 

^  Kautsky,  The  Social  Revolution,  especially  pp.  117,  159; 
Agrarfrage,  pp.  443-444;  Das  Erfurter  Programm. 

2  Vandervelde,  Collectivism,  p.  46.  Also  the  address  by  the 
same  writer,  quoted  by  Ensor  in  Modern  Socialism,  pp.  198- 
228. 

3  Lafargue,  article  in  Revue  Politique  et  Parlementaire, 
October,  1898,  p.  70. 

*  HiLLQUiT,  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  p.  113.  See 
also,  Jaures,  Studies  in  Socialism,  pp.  36-40;  Simons,  The 
American  Farmer,  and  the  present  writer's  Substance  of  Social- 
ism, and  Socialism,  a  Summary  and  Interpretation  of  Socialist 
Principles, 


The  Socialist  State  79 

gorles.  To  the  first,  which  we  will  call  the  cate- 
gory of  personal  property  and  enterprise,  belongs 
the  wealth  which  individuals  have  earned  by  their 
own  labor,  without  exploiting  the  labor  of  others, 
either  in  the  form  of  rent,  interest  or  profit.  To 
this  category  also  belongs  all  that  productive  enter- 
prise which  is  carried  on  by  individuals  without  re- 
course to  the  exploitation  of  wage-laborers.  We 
may  instance  as  examples  of  this  kind  of  enter- 
prise, the  small  farmer  cultivating  his  land  by  his 
own  labor,  earning  a  good  living  for  himself  and 
family,  but  without  exploiting  the  labor  of  others, 
and  the  village  blacksmith,  who  likewise  makes  a 
good  living  by  meeting  a  local  need,  without  ex- 
ploiting the  labor  of  others.  We  might  add  to 
these  examples  that  of  cooperative  effort,  where  a 
number  of  workers  join  together  for  mutual  ad- 
vantage, sharing  alike  the  work  and  the  benefits  to 
be  derived  from  it. 

In  such  cases  as  these  —  and  they  are  very  nu- 
merous — '  there  is,  as  Vandervelde  has  so  well 
pointed  out,  *'  a  wedlock  of  Property  and  Labor," 
with  which  Socialism  has  no  quarrel,  since  its  raison 
d'etre  is  the  union  of  property  and  labor  in  the 
same  hands. ^  There  is  no  exaction  of  surplus 
value  from  the  toil  of  the  workers  engaged;  no 
"  sleeping  partner  "  can  appropriate  the  fruits  of 
their  toil.     Of  course,  if  the  methods  of  production 

^  Quoted  by  Ensor,  Modern  Socialism,  p.  206. 


8o  Applied  Socialism 

pursued  by  these  petty  producers  should  prove  to 
be  slow,  cumbersome,  Inefficient  and  uneconomical, 
they  might  be  competed  out  of  existence,  either 
by  the  State  or  by  industrial  organizations  which 
the  State  would  have  to  take  over  ultimately. 
But  whatever  might  be  done  for  the  sake  of  ef- 
ficiency, It  Is  very  e^ndent  that,  In  the  case  of 
property  and  enterprise  belonging  to  this  category, 
the  great  incentive  to  socialization,  the  desire  of 
the  workers  to  rid  themselves  of  the  exploiter's 
throttling  grasp,  does  not  exist.  Such  personal 
labor  as  that  described  never  amassed  colossal 
fortunes,  dangerous  to  society  by  reason  of  their 
magnitude,  nor  centralized  social  and  political 
power  in  the  hands  of  the  few.  Therefore,  the 
Incentives  to  socialization  —  the  main  Incentives, 
that  is  —  are  lacking  in  such  cases. 

To  the  second  category,  which  we  will  call  the 
category  of  social  property  and  enterprise,  belongs 
the  great  mass  of  wealth,  in  the  shape  of  private 
fortunes  which  Individuals  have  amassed,  not  by 
their  own  labor,  but  from  the  labor  of  others, 
through  the  channels  of  rent.  Interest  and  profit 
—  the  three  main  divisions  of  surplus  value,  the 
unpaid  labor  of  the  actual  producers.  To  this 
category  also  belongs  all  that  large  productive  en- 
terprise—  by  far  the  larger  part  of  present  day 
production  —  which  is  social  In  the  sense  that  It  Is 
carried  on  by  means  of  social  labor,  the  labor  of 


The  Socialist  State  8 1 

large  bodies  of  workers,  but  is  unsocial  in  the 
sense  that  its  fruits  are  appropriated  by  a  rela- 
tively small  number  of  persons,  and  those  not  the 
workers  themselves.  We  may  use  as  an  example 
of  this  kind  of  enterprise  a  modern  factory,  em- 
ploying hundreds,  or  even  thousands,  of  hands. 
Its  product  Is  designed  to  supply  some  social  need, 
clothing,  for  instance.  Such  an  enterprise  Is  made 
possible  only  by  social  effort.  It  depends  upon  the 
maintenance  of  a  system  of  distribution  —  rail- 
ways and  so  on  —  and  upon  the  maintenance  of 
a  system  of  law  and  order,  both  of  which  are 
creations  of  society.  The  actual  work  Is  done,  as 
already  observed,  by  a  large  number  of  workers 
organized.  Their  tasks  are  subdivided,  so  that  no 
man  can  say  *'  I  made  this  coat."  Each  article  of 
clothing  represents  the  associated  labor  of  many 
workers.  By  far  the  greatest  part  of  the  wealth 
produced  to-day  under  ordinary  capitalistic  condi- 
tions Is  thus  produced.  It  is  easy  to  under- 
stand why  such  production  should  be  called 
"  social." 

Now,  let  us  see  why  the  distribution  of  this 
wealth  Is  called"  unsocial,"  or  even  "  anti-social  " : 
Whereas  it  Is  possible  for  the  individual  producer 
to  appropriate  for  himself  and  those  dependent 
upon  him  the  full  value  created  by  his  labor,  that 
Is  not  possible  for  the  worker  engaged  In  social 
production.     To  begin  with,  it  would  be  Impos- 


82  Applied  Socialism 

sible  to  determine  the  exact  share  of  each  worker 
in  the  creation  of  the  value  of  a  coat  over  and 
above  the  value  of  the  raw  material  contained 
in  it.  The  individual  contribution  is  lost  to  view, 
completely  blended  in  the  whole. 

Any  attempt  to  trace  the  share  of  the  individual 
worker  in  the  sum  of  associated  production  would 
be  futile,  so  thoroughly  socialized  is  the  system  of 
production.  If  we  desired  to  give  the  individual 
worker  the  value  of  his  labor-product,  we  could  not 
do  it.  The  nearest  approximation  to  that  pos- 
sible under  the  circumstances  would  be  an  equal 
division  among  all  the  workers  of  the  difference 
between  the  value  of  the  raw  materials  used  and 
the  value  of  the  finished  product,  charging  the  cost 
of  depreciation  against  each  in  the  same  pro  rata 
manner.  The  objections  to  such  a  plan  are  ob- 
vious enough :  it  is  only  mentioned  here  to  indicate 
the  reality  of  the  socialized  character  of  modern 
capitalistic  production. 

But  the  objective  of  all  such  capitalistic  produc- 
tion" is  profit.  A  few  individuals,  who  do  not  care 
at  all  for  the  kind  of  clothing  to  be  produced, 
provide  the  buildings,  machinery,  raw  material, 
and  other  requisites,  in  a  word,  the  capital  which 
enables  the  workers  to  manufacture  the  clothing. 
Each  worker  receives,  not  a  proportionate  share 
of  the  total  values  created,  but  wages,  a  certain 
payment  for  his  labor-power,  provided  by  the  same 


The  Socialist  State  83 

group  of  persons  as  that  which  provides  the  raw 
materials,  the  machinery  and  other  requisites  of 
production.  Only  for  the  sake  of  obtaining  a 
labor  product  of  greater  value  than  the  capital  they 
invest  do  capitalists  engage  in  business  enterprise 
of  any  kind. 

The  difference  between  the  value  of  the  labor 
product  and  the  wages  paid  to  the  producers 
thereof  constitutes  the  surplus  value  which  is  at 
once  the  objective  of  capitalist  enterprise,  and  the 
cause  of  that  class  warfare  which  is  the  most  strik- 
ing fact  in  present  society.  The  whole  struggle 
of  employers  and  employed  centers  upon  this  one 
pivotal  fact  that  the  former  class  is  constantly  en- 
deavoring to  increase  its  harvest  of  surplus-value, 
while  the  latter  class  as  constantly  endeavors  to 
obtain  an  increased  proportion  of  its  labor  prod- 
uct and  to  surrender  to  its  natural  enemy  as  lit- 
tle surplus-value  as  possible. 

This  fact  is  by  no  means  a  discovery  of  Socialist 
thinkers,  as  many  persons  believe.  Long  before 
the  rise  of  the  modern  Socialist  school  of  econo- 
mists, Adam  Smith  called  attention  to  it  in  lan- 
guage as  unequivocal  and  clear  as  Marx  ever  used 
to  the  same  end.  The  following  passage,  from 
The  Wealth  of  Nations,  is,  despite  certain  anti- 
quated phases,  a  remarkably  clear  and  concise 
statement  of  the  fundamental  facts  in  the  modern 
struggle : 


84  Applied  Socialism 

"  What  are  the  common  wages  of  labor,  depends  everywhere 
upon  the  contract  usually  made  between  these  two  parties 
[/.  e.,  the  worker  and  the  employer],  whose  interests  are  by  no 
means  the  same.  The  workmen  desire  to  get  as  much,  the 
master  to  give  as  little  as  possible.  The  former  are  disposed 
to  combine  in  order  to  raise,  the  latter  in  order  to  lower,  the 
wages  of  labor. 

"  It  Is  not,  however,  difficult  to  forsee  which  of  the  two 
parties  must,  upon  all  orainary  occasions,  have  the  advantage 
in  the  dispute,  and  force  the  other  into  compliance  with  their 
terms.  The  masters,  being  fewer  in  number,  can  combine  much 
more  easily;  and  the  law,  besides,  authorizes,  or  at  least  does 
not  prohibit,  their  combinations,  while  it  prohibits  those  of  the 
workmen.  We  have  no  acts  of  Parliament  against  combining 
to  lower  the  price  of  work;  but  many  against  combining  to 
raise  it.  In  all  such  disputes  the  masters  can  hold  out  much 
longer.  A  landlord,  a  farmer,  a  master  manufacturer,  or 
merchant,  though  they  did  not  employ  a  single  workman,  could 
generally  live  a  year  or  two  upon  the  stocks  which  they  have 
already  acquired.  Many  workmen  could  not  subsist  a  week, 
few  could  subsist  a  month,  and  scarce  any  a  year  without  em- 
ployment. In  the  long-run  the  workman  may  be  as  necessary 
to  his  master  as  his  master  is  to  him;  but  the  necessity  is  not  so 
immediate. 

"  We  rarely  hear,  it  has  been  said,  of  the  combinations  of 
masters;  though  frequently  of  those  of  workmen.  But  who- 
ever imagines,  upon  this  account,  that  masters  rarely  combine, 
is  as  ignorant  of  the  world  as  of  the  subject.  Masters  are 
always  and  everywhere  in  a  sort  of  tacit,  but  constant  and 
uniform,  combination,  not  to  raise  the  wages  of  labor  above 
their  actual  rate.  To  violate  this  combination  is  everywhere 
a  most  unpopular  action,  and  a  sort  of  reproach  to  a  master 
among  his  neighbors  and  equals.  We  seldom,  indeed,  hear  of 
this  combination,  because  it  is  the  usual,  and  one  may  say,  the 
natural  state  of  things  which  nobody  ever  hears  of.  Masters, 
too,  sometimes  enter  into  particular  combinations  to  sink  the 
wages  of  labor  even  below  this  rate.  These  are  always  con- 
ducted with  the  utmost  silence  and  secrecy,  till  the  moment  of 


The  Socialist  State  85 

execution,  and  when  the  workmen  yield,  as  they  sometimes  do, 
without  resistance,  though  severely  felt  by  them,  they  are  never 
heard  of  by  other  people.  Such  combinations,  however,  are 
frequently  resisted  by  a  contrary  defensive  combination  of  the 
workmen;  who  sometimes,  too,  without  any  provocation  of  this 
kind,  combine  of  their  own  accord  to  raise  the  price  of  their 
labor.  Their  usual  pretenses  are,  sometimes  the  high  price  of 
provisions,  sometimes  the  great  profit  which  their  masters  make 
by  their  work.  But  whether  their  combinations  be  offensive  or 
defensive,  they  are  always  abundantly  heard  of.  In  order  to 
bring  the  point  to  a  speedy  decision,  they  have  always  recourse 
to  the  loudest  clamor,  and  sometimes  to  the  most  shocking  vio- 
lence and  outrage.  They  are  desperate,  and  act  with  the  folly 
and  extravagance  of  desperate  men,  who  must  either  starve 
or  frighten  their  masters  into  an  immediate  compliance  with 
their  demands.  The  masters  upon  these  occasions  are  just  as 
clamorous  upon  the  other  side,  and  never  cease  to  call  aloud 
for  the  assistance  of  the  civil  magistrate,  and  the  rigorous  exe- 
cution of  those  laws  which  have  been  enacted  with  so  much 
severity  against  the  combinations  of  servants,  laborers  and 
journeymen.  The  workmen,  accordingly,  very  seldom  derive 
any  advantage  from  the  violence  of  these  tumultuous  combina- 
tions, which,  partly  from  the  interposition  of  the  magistrate, 
partly  from  the  superior  steadiness  of  the  masters,  partly  from 
the  necessity  which  the  greater  part  of  the  workmen  are  under 
of  submitting  for  the  sake  of  present  subsistence,  generally  end 
in  nothing  but  the  punishment  or  ruin  of  the  ringleaders."  ^ 

The  Socialist  movement,  then,  is  a  phase  of  this 
class  struggle.  It  is  the  political  counterpart  of 
the  struggle  in  the  workshop,  represented  by 
strikes  and  lockouts,  by  trades  unions  and  em- 
ployers' associations.  Its  aim  is  the  elimination 
of  the  exploiter,   and  it  contemplates  the  public 

1  Adam  Smith,  The  Wealth  of  Nations,  edited  by  Ernest  Bel- 
fort  Bax,  Vol.  I,  Chap.  VIII,  pp.  67-68. 


86  Applied  Socialism 

ownership  and  control  of  the  agencies  of  produc- 
tion and  distribution  only  just  so  far  as  may  be 
necessary  in  order  to  secure  that  result.  Not 
public  ownership  of  all  wealth  and  means  of  pro- 
duction, but  public  ownership  of  all  such  means  of 
production  as  may  be  necessary  to  prevent  the 
exploitation  of  the  producers  by  mere  investors  is 
the  programme  of  modern  Socialism. 

We  need  not,  therefore,  seriously  contemplate 
the  possibility  of  the  good  housewife,  in  a  Social- 
ist regime,  going  to  a  bureau  of  the  city  govern- 
ment to  make  application  for  the  use  of  a  com- 
munal sewing  machine  or  chafing  dish,  having  it 
checked  against  her  account.  Nor  need  we  fear 
that  an  all-powerful  State  will  be  the  sole  owner 
of  property,  and  the  only  source  of  industrial  en- 
terprise, compelled,  by  the  very  nature  of  its  task, 
to  assign  to  their  respective  positions  gravediggers 
and  artists,  farmers  and  poets. 

All  such  conceptions  of  the  Socialist  State  belong 
to  the  domain  of  vaudeville. 


IV 

PROPERTY   AND   THE    STATE 

PIERRE  JOSEPH  PROUDHON,  the  An- 
archist philosopher,  who  was  born  in  the 
same  year  as  Lincoln  and  Darwin,  is 
chiefly  remembered  by  the  world  at  large  for  the 
striking  aphorism,  ^'  La  propriete  c'est  vol " 
(Property  is  robbery),  with  which  he  pretends  to 
answer  his  own  question,  "What  is  Property?" 
As  usual,  Proudhon  was  rather  unoriginal  in  mak- 
ing that  aphorism.  He  simply  repeated  what  had 
been  said  a  generation  earlier,  in  1780,  by  the 
brilliant  but  ill-starred  Jacques  Pierre  Brissot  de 
Warville.^  It  was  Proudhon's  good  fortune  to 
be  remembered. 

But  although  Brissot  de  Warville  managed  to 
antedate  Proudhon  by  half  a  century,  his  claim  to 
originality  is  hardly  superior  to  Proudhon's.  Sub- 
stantially the  same  thing  had  been  said  many 
centuries  before  by  some  of  the  greatest  and  holi- 
est of  the  Christian  Fathers,  and  said  so  often  that 

1  Brissot  de  Warville,  Recherches  philosophiques,  sur  le  droit 
de  propriete  et  sur  le  vol  consideres  dans  la  nature  et  dans  la 
societe. 

87 


88  Applied  Socialism 

it  became  commonplace.  There  Is  not  much 
choice  between  Proudhon's  aphorism  and  the  cele- 
brated saying  of  Saint  Augustine,  that  "  private 
property  originated  In  usurpation  " ;  Saint  Clem- 
ent's that  "  private  property  is  the  fruit  of  in- 
iquity";  Saint  Jerome's  that  "  opulence  is  always 
the  result  of  theft  " ;  or  of  Ambrose's  dictum  that 
"  Nature  gave  all  things  In  common  for  the  use 
of  all;  usurpation  created  private  right." 

Indeed,  the  early  Christian  Fathers,  Brissot  de 
Warville  and  Proudhon  had  much  In  common. 
They  all  believed  Implicitly  in  a  doctrine  of  "  nat- 
ural right,"  according  to  which  the  inequalities 
which  divide  men  Into  rich  and  poor,  bringing 
some  into  the  world  saddled  and  bridled,  and 
others  wearing  spurs  and  ready  to  ride  the  saddled 
ones  —  to  use  Heine's  famous  simile  —  are  due  to 
man's  disobedience  of  natural  law,  and  his  depar- 
ture from  the  "  state  of  nature."  It  was  thus, 
with  Rousseau's  teachings  for  his  mental  back- 
ground, Saint  Just  voiced  the  spirit  of  the 
French  Revolution  by  declaring  that  wealth  was 
I'infame. 

If  we  are  really  seeking  a  satisfying  answer  to 
the  question,  "  What  Is  property?  "  neither  the 
Christian  Fathers,  Brissot  de  Warville,  Proudhon, 
nor  Saint  Just  can  help  us  very  much.  Epithet  is 
neither  exposition  nor  definition.  To  denounce 
property  as  theft  may  suit  the  preacher  hurling 


Pioperty  and  the  State  89 

fiery  invectives,  or  the  impassioned  agitator  rous- 
ing the  mob  to  revolutionary  frenzy,  but  it  does 
not  help  the  serious  student.  Proudhon  himself, 
let  it  be  said  in  justice,  fully  recognized  this. 
What  we  need  is  a  definition  of  property  which 
will  afford  us  a  satisfactory  guiding  principle  in 
our  studies. 

In  this  more  philosophic  spirit,  Proudhon  de- 
fined property  as  le  droit  d'liser  d' abuser  (the 
right  to  use  and  abuse),  but  a  moment's  reflection 
will  show  that  this  studied  definition  is  scarcely 
more  satisfactory  or  illuminating  than  his  famous 
epigram.  In  the  first  place,  it  can  hardly  be  said 
that  a  "  right  to  abuse  "  can  exist,  for  the  terms 
are  mutually  exclusive.  Abuse  is  at  all  times  a 
violation  of  right.  In  the  second  place,  so  much 
of  the  law  of  private  right  specifically  defines  and 
forbids  abuse,  and  provides  for  its  punishment, 
that  if  we  are  to  exempt  from  our  conception  of 
property  all  things  subject  to  such  restrictions,  we 
should  rob  the  word  property  of  all  meaning. 

To  take  only  one  very  elementary  example :  I 
own  an  animal,  a  dog,  let  us  say,  or  a  cow.  The 
animal  Is  my  property.  I  possess  certain  rights  of 
proprietorship  in  it.  I  can  sell  It,  for  instance, 
give  It  away,  or  prevent  another  person  from  tak- 
ing and  using  It.  This  is  my  right  to  use.  But 
my  right  to  use  the  cow  as  a  milk  provider,  or  to 
use  the  dog  to  guard  my  home,  does  not  carry  with 


90  Applied  Socialism 

it  a  right  to  abuse.  I  may  not  abuse  the  cow  by 
making  her  a  living  target,  or  afford  myself  the 
pleasure  of  torturing  the  dog.  The  animal  Is  my 
"  property,"  but  the  "  right  to  abuse  "  It  does  not 
exist. 

Nor  Is  the  right  to  use  an  absolute  right,  as  the 
definition  of  Proudhon  Implies.  This  follows  as 
a  necessary  consequence  of  the  principle  just  laid 
down.  Laws  which  define  and  forbid  abuse  are 
In  reality  limitations  of  the  right  to  use.  They 
restrict  the  right  to  use,  and  lay  down  the  principle 
of  rightful  usage,  for  abuse  Is,  after  all,  only  a 
name  for  improper  use.  But  the  rightful  use  of 
anything  may  comprehend  much  more  than  the 
personal  relation  of  the  owner  to  his  property. 
Not  only  am  I  forbidden  to  treat  my  cow  with 
cruelty,  but  in  certain  circumstances  I  may  be  pre- 
vented from  keeping  the  cow  under  conditions 
which  involve  no  abuse  of  the  cow,  but  rather  of 
myself,  my  family,  or  my  neighbors.  I  may,  for 
example,  elect  to  keep  my  cow  In  my  parlor  or  my 
bedroom,  and  to  treat  it  with  superlative  kindness. 
What  happens?  Why,  I  immediately  find  that  I 
have  no  right  to  do  such  things.  The  municipal 
authorities  at  once  step  In  and  remove  the  cow, 
thus  denying  my  right  to  use  either  my  animal  or 
my  home  as  I  please. 

If  we  are  to  regard  the  ownership  of  one's  home 
as  a  form  of  property,  the  fallacious  character  of 


Property  and  the  State  91 

Proudhon's  definition  is  apparent.  There  is  no 
such  a  right  known  to  the  jurisprudence  of  any 
country  as  the  unlimited  right  to  use  one's  dwell- 
ing. Your  home  may  not  be  used  as  a  brothel, 
for  example,  as  a  theater,  as  a  saloon,  or  as  a 
gaming-house,  except  under  such  restrictions  as 
the  State  may  choose  to  prescribe.  The  principle 
involved  is  limitation  of  the  right  of  use,  imposed 
in  the  interests  of  others.  You  may  not  even 
build  the  kind  of  house  your  fancy  dictates,  un- 
less the  State  approves  your  fancy,  but  must  build 
it  according  to  conditions  prescribed  by  the  au- 
thority granting  the  permission  to  build.  And 
after  it  is  built  you  may  not  expose  in  it  lewd  or 
obscene  pictures.  In  no  sense,  therefore,  can  an 
unlimited  "  right  to  use  and  abuse  "  be  said  to 
constitute  the  essence  of  property. 

One  eminent  authority  ^  has  defined  the  right 
of  property  as  "  an  extension  of  the  power  of  a 
person  over  portions  of  the  physical  world." 
That  is  a  fair  description  of  primitive  property 
rights,  perhaps,  for  In  its  primary  sense  property 
undoubtedly  relates  to  material  things.  But  in 
our  highly  complex  civilization  this  is  not  the  case, 
and  the  definition  is  nearly  as  unsatisfactory  as 
Proudhon's.  We  have,  for  example,  laws  mak- 
ing it  a  larceny  to  abstract  electricity  belonging 
to  persons  other  than  the  abstractors,  yet  electricity 

1  Prof.  Holland,  Jurisprudence,  p.  62. 


^2  Applied  Socialism 

is  not  matter,  as  that  term  is  generally  employed 
and  understood,  but  force  —  not  a  tangible  thing. 

It  is  not  easy  to  formulate  a  satisfying  def- 
inition of  property.  Most  writers  on  juris- 
prudence define  it  as  a  right  in  rem,  that  is,  a  right 
available  against  all  other  persons  than  the  one 
invested  with  the  right,  as  distinguished  from  a 
right  in  personam,  that  is,  a  right  available  only 
against  some  particular  individual  or  individuals. 
Thus  my  right  to  my  cow,  my  dog  or  my  house  is 
a  right  which  enables  me  to  prevent  any  other 
person  from  taking  possession  of  them,  or,  if  I 
choose,  to  transfer  that  power  to  another.  This 
is  the  essence  of  a  right  in  rem,  to  be  sharply  dis- 
tinguished from  the  right  in  personam,  or  in  per- 
sonam certam,  that  is,  against  some  specific  per- 
son or  persons,  as  in  the  case  of  the  right  to  exact 
the  performance  of  an  obligation  arising  out  of 
a  contract.  The  right  in  rem  imposes  a  duty  upon 
every  other  person  than  the  person  in  whom  the 
right  resides,  while  the  right  in  personam  imposes 
a  duty  only  upon  specific  persons. 

Rights  in  rem  are  by  no  means  confined  to  ma- 
terial objects.  As  already  observed,  such  an  in- 
tangible and  indefinable  force  as  electricity  is  sub- 
ject to  the  right  in  rem.  So  are  copyrights,  an 
author  being  able  to  defend  himself  against  all 
persons  who  would  appropriate  his  work,  the 
ideas  and  their  arrangement,  in  the  same  way  as 


Property  and  the  State  93 

he  could  defend  his  right  to  the  printed  book  it- 
self. On  its  negative  side,  then,  we  may  define 
the  right  of  property  as  being  the  right  which  the 
State  confers  upon  a  certain  person  to  prevent 
every  other  person  from  appropriating  or  med- 
dling with  certain  things  which  it,  the  State,  makes 
subject  to  that  right.  On  its  positive  side,  we  j 
may  say  that  the  right  of  property  includes  the 
rights  of  possession,  enjoymejot^.  disposition  and 
alienation,  each  subject,  howevery  tO-SU£h„ limita- 
tions  and  restrictions  as  the  State  may  impose. \ 
Thus,  I  may  not  keep  my  cow  if  it  suffers  from 
anthrax;  I  may  not  enjoy  my  house  if  the  State 
declares  it  to  be  unfit  for  habitation;  I  may  even 
be  prevented  from  disposing  of  my  property  ex- 
cept under  such  conditions  as  the  State  may  de- 
termine. 

Without  attempting  here  and  now  to  formulate 
a  more  comprehensive  definition  of  property  than 
the  foregoing,  we  observe  that  the  right  of  prop- 
erty is  a  creation  of  the  State.  The  raison  d'etre 
of  the  State  is  property.  The  first  State  arose 
as  a  necessary  condition  for  the  permanent  estab- 
lishment of  private  property.  To  say  that  civi- 
lization began  with  the  development  of  the 
political  institution  called  the  State,  is  only  an- 
other way  of  saying  that  it  began  with  the  develop- 
ment of  the  economic  institution  of  private 
property.     In   a   certain  very  definite  sense,   the 


94  Applied  Socialism 

history  of  civilization  is  the  history  of  property, 
of  man's  efforts  rightly  to  relate  himself  to  things. 

Property,  be  it  observed,  is  always  spoken  of  as 
a  "  right,"  Now,  the  term  right  is  etymologically 
related  to  jightness,  and  connotes  a  moral  quality. 
But  what  is  "  rightness  "  as  distinguished  from 
"  wrongness  "?  When  this  question  is  raised,  we 
are  at  once  confronted  by  the  need  of  some  phi- 
losophy of  morals,  having  for  Its  objective  the  es- 
tablishment of  some  standard  by  which  actions  may 
be  appraised  and  classified  as  either  "  good  "  or 
"bad." 

We  are  not  concerned  here  and  now  with  any 
moral  inquiry.  Our  present  concern  is  to  under- 
stand the  social  and  legal  significance  of  the  word 
"  right  "  as  related  to  property.  It  seems,  how- 
ever, practically  impossible  to  entirely  separate  the 
word  when  used  in  this  connection  from  its  ethical 
associations.  It  may  help  us  if  we  conceive  of 
the  State  as  being  the  ultimate  standard  of  judg- 
ment. The  will  of  the  State  is  the  sole  basis  of 
right  in  law.  As  Professor  Holland  says,  "  That 
which  gives  validity  to  a  legal  right  is,  in  every 
case,  the  force  which  is  lent  to  it  by  the  State."  ^ 
A  legal  right  is,  therefore,  distinguished  from  a 
moral  right  In  this:  it  is  not  the  power  which  an 
individual  ought  to  have  and  exercise,  according 
to  some  particular  philosophy  of  ethics,  but  the 

^  Holland,  Jurisprudence,  p.  62. 


Property  and  the  State  95 

power  which  the  State  says  he  may  have  and  exer- 
cise. It  is  none  the  less  a  valid  right  for  being 
contrary  to  every  ethical  code. 

But  the  State  is  not  a  fixed  and  unchangeable 
thing,  removed  from  the  laws  and  influences  of 
human  existence.  It  is  a  human  institution,  and, 
therefore,  its  actions  and  its  concepts  at  any  given 
time  are  necessarily  reflexes  of  human  thought  and 
experience.  What  the  State  at  one  period  sets 
forth  as  a  right,  it  denies  at  some  other  period. 
The  history  of  our  jurisprudence  is  the  record  of 
affirmations  by  the  State  of  one  epoch  nullified  by 
the  denials  of  the  State  In  some  other  epoch. 
What  it  proclaims  as  a  right  in  one  age,  the  State 
forbids  and  penalizes  in  another  age. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  there  is  no  constant 
and  invariable  right  to  property,  except,  indeed, 
that  ultimate   right  resident   in   the   State,    from 
which  it  invests  individuals  with  such  powers  as 
it  may  from  time  to  time  choose  to  convey  with 
the  validity  of  rights.     It  follows,  likewise,  that! 
there  is  not  at  any  time  an  absolute  right  to  prop- 
erty, except  that  which  is  inherent  in  the  State.  \ 
That  is  to  say,  no  individual  can  at  any  time  be  j 
said  to  enjoy  an  absolute  right  of  property.     This  | 
is  obvious,  because  the  right  itself  is  a  creature 
of  the  State,  and  the  State  never  ceases  to  con- 
trol it.     At  any  rate,  it  never  ceases  to  hold  the 
power  to  control  it  or  to  revoke  it.     By  the  same 


96  Applied  Socialism 

power  which  created  the  right,  the  State  can  at 
any  time  destroy  it.  We  need  only  refer  here  to 
the  institution  of  chattel  slavery.  The  right  of 
property  in  slaves  was  created  by  the  State  at 
one  period  and  destroyed  by  it  at  another. 

Property,  then,  is  a  social  institution  dependent 
upon  the  will  of  the  State.  It  would  not  be  cor- 
rect, therefore,  to  speak  of  Robinson  Crusoe  liv- 
ing in  solitude  upon  the  island  as  being  the  "  pro- 
prietor "  of  the  island.  Nor  would  it  be  correct 
to  speak  of  the  island  as  his  "  property."  A  man 
alone  in  the  world,  as  Immanuel  Kant  long  ago 
observed,  could  not  be  the  proprietor  of  anything, 
for  there  would  be  nobody  to  exclude  from  the 
possession  or  use  of  anything.  Property  is  incon- 
ceivable except  as  a  social  institution :  its  essence 
is  a  right  which  is  made  valid  only  by  the  will  and 
power  of  the  State,  and  which  is  at  all  times  sub- 
ject to  that  will  and  power. 

It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  we  should 
understand  that  there  are  not,  and  in  the  nature 
of  things  could  not  be,  any  absolute  private  prop- 
erty rights.  When  we  assert  the  ultimate  resi- 
dence of  all  property  rights  in  the  State,  we  are 
not  dealing  with  a  mere  theory,  an  interesting  fic- 
tion of  the  law.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  one  of 
the  most  important  principles  of  our  law,  and 
we  see  it  exemplified  in  the  life  of  the  nation  nearly 
every  day.     The  laws  which  give  the  State  eminent 


Property  and  the  State  97 

domain  over  land  and  other  natural  resources,  af- 
ford conspicuous  and  familiar  examples  of  the 
sovereign  power  which  lies  back  of  the  "  private 
ownership  "  of  these  things,  narrowly  limiting 
private  rights  in  them.  And  what  is  true  of  land 
is  equally  true  of  all  other  forms  of  property, 
though  that  fact  is  not  generally  remembered. 

There  is  not  to-day,  and  there  never  has  been  in 
any  civilized  country,  such  a  thing  as  absolute 
ownership  of  land  by  individuals.  It  is  true  that 
the  domiuum  directum  of  the  old  Roman  law,  and 
the  allodial  title  of  the  old  Saxon  law,  seem  to 
have  given  practically  absolute  ownership,  and 
some  writers  have  held  that  it  was  only  after  the 
Norman  Conquest  of  England  that  the  dominum 
directum  of  all  land  was  vested  in  the  King;  the 
so-called  owner  merely  enjoying  a  right  of  use,  the 
dominum  utile.  It  is,  however,  quite  certain  that 
the  State,  as  the  only  power  to  give  validity  to 
any  property  rights,  at  all  times  had  the  power  to 
destroy  such  rights  in  whole  or  in  part,  by  with- 
holding its  validating  sanction  and  force. 

What  is  the  actual  position  of  the  State  to-day? 
A  man  "  owns  "  a  piece  of  land  in  the  heart  of 
the  city:  it  would  make  an  admirable  site  for  a 
public  building,  such  as  a  library,  a  post  office,  or  a 
hospital,  but  the  owner  prefers  to  use  the  plot  as 
a  depository  for  rubbish.  Along  comes  the  State 
with  its  voice  of  authority  and  says,   "  You  shall 


98  Applied  Socialism 

not  use  that  plot  of  ground  for  such  a  pui-pose; 
I  forbid  it."  His  ownership  is  thus  subjected  to 
a  very  real  and  important  limitation  imposed  upon 
it  by  the  very  authority  which  alone  has  the  power 
to  sustain  his  claim  to  ownership.  Or,  another 
man  owns  a  piece  of  ground  in  the  city,  in  some 
central  location,  and  builds  upon  it  a  home  for 
himself  and  his  family.  They  are  very  happy  in 
the  enjoyment  of  their  home,  when  one  day  a 
representative  of  the  State  enters  the  premises  and 
begins  to  measure  the  ground.  The  owner  is  then 
informed  that  the  State,  or  one  of  its  constituent 
parts,  the  municipality,  needs  a  plot  of  ground 
upon  which  to  erect  a  court,  a  hospital,  a  library, 
a  museum,  a  police-station,  or  some  other  public 
building. 

"  But  this  plot  is  not  for  sale,"  says  the  owner. 
"  It  is  my  home,  and  I  will  not  sell  it  at  any  price." 
Does  his  protest  avail  him?  Not  at  all!  If  the 
State  needs  the  land,  and  the  man  refuses  to  sell  it, 
the  State  compels  him  to  do  so.  Thus,  his 
*'  ownership  "  of  the  land  is  revoked  by  the  State. 
This  process  goes  on  constantly,  not  merely  when 
the  State  itself  or  one  of  its  component  parts  de- 
sires land  which  is  not  for  sale,  but  when  a  quasi 
private  body,  a  corporation  which  performs  a 
public  service,  such  as  a  railroad  company,  for  ex- 
ample, desires  such  land  it  appeals  to  the  State, 
and  the  State  uses  its  powers  of  eminent  domain 


Property  and  the  State  99 

to   secure   the   land   compulsorily,    for   the   public 
good. 

As  we  have  already  observed,  this  ultimate, 
sovereign  power  of  ownership  which  resides  in  the 
State  in  the  case  of  land,  applies  equally  to  all 
other  forms  of  property,  though  it  is  not  so  com- 
monly exercised.  It  may  be  safely  laid  down  as  a 
correct  principle  that  there  is  no  absolute  right  to 
property  of  any  kind  except  that  which  the  State 
possesses.  In  time  of  war,  for  example,  the  food 
in  your  larder,  the  ox  in  the  stall,  the  crops  grow- 
ing in  the  fields,  and  the  clothing  in  your  ward- 
robe may  all  be  seized,  legally,  by  the  representa- 
tives of  the  State,  despite  any  protest  you  may 
make.  This  may  be  done,  also,  in  times  of  peace 
by  military  forces  merely  practicing  the  game  of 
war.^  And  in  case  of  a  great  disaster  or  serious 
accident  of  any  kind,  under  the  ordinary  police 
powers,  the  home  of  any  citizen  and  whatever  it 
contains,  even  to  his  pocket-handkerchief,  may  be 
lawfully  seized  and  used.  Clearly,  then,  none  of 
these  things  can  be  said  to  be  privately  owned  in 
any  absolute  sense.  The  fact  that  the  State 
usually,  though  not  always,  pays  compensation  for 
the  property  it  appropriates  in  no  manner  invali- 
dates the  principle  we  are  seeking  to  establish. 

^  Notable  examples  of  the  use  of  this  power  were  reported 
by  the  press  during  the  great  "  mimic  war  "  in  Massachusetts, 
in  the  summer  of  1909. 


lOO  Applied  Socialism 

The  same  presumption  of  ultimate  ownership 
underlies  every  act  by  which  the  State  confiscates 
property.  Taxation  is  a  familiar  form  of  confisca- 
tion. What  principle,  other  than  that  of  its  ulti- 
mate superior  right,  justifies  the  State  in  taxing 
incomes  or  inheritances?  A  man  inherits  a  large 
amount  of  money:  he  pays  all  the  regular  taxes, 
such  as  are  imposed  upon  other  members  of  the 
community,  upon  the  same  basis  as  other  citizens. 
But  now,  simply  because  he  receives  by  bequest 
a  considerable  sum  of  money,  the  State,  in  lands 
where  inheritances  are  taxed,  as  in  England,  comes 
forward  and  compels  him  to  pay  a  stipulated  pro- 
portion of  that  money  into  the  State  treasury.  Or 
a  man  is  compelled  to  pay  a  tax  upon  his  income, 
over  and  above  all  the  ordinary  taxes  which  he 
pays  in  common  with  other  citizens.  It  is  per- 
fectly clear  that  the  State  does  not  regard  the  one 
man  as  absolute  owner  of  the  money  he  Inherits, 
nor  the  other  of  the  money  he  earns.  It  Imposes 
a  special  tax  as  a  means  of  appropriating  a  share 
of  the  bequest  or  income,  and  that  tax  must  be 
paid  or.  In  the  event  of  refusal,  the  recalcitrant 
and  defaulting  citizen  must  go  to  prison.  When- 
ever It  decides  to  do  so,  the  State  can  increase  the 
amount  of  that  tax,  and  there  Is  nothing  in  the 
theory  of  taxation  by  the  State  to  prevent  the  tax 
from  reaching  one  hundred  per  centum. 

Take  yet  another   form   of   confiscation  which 


Property  and  the  State  lOl 

the  State  constantly  practices:  I  own  some  shares 
of  stock  in  a  corporation  that  is  engaged  in  brew- 
ing and  distilling  malt  liquors  for  sale.  These 
shares  of  stock  represent  my  property.  I  can 
sell  them  or  otherwise  alienate  them.  They  are 
mine,  and  the  State  gives  validity  to  my  right  as 
in  the  case  of  other  kinds  of  property.  I  speak 
of  them  as  my  property,  and  the  ordinary  practice 
of  the  State  so  regards  them.  For  years  I  go 
on,  secure  in  my  enjoyment  of  a  right  which  rests 
upon  the  authority  of  the  State,  and  all  my  income 
is  derived  from  that  right.  Destroy  it  and  I  am 
immediately  reduced  to  beggary.  Suddenly,  word 
comes  that  the  State  has  enacted  a  law  prohibiting 
the  manufacture  or  sale  of  malt  liquors.  Lo !  my 
property  Is  destroyed.  Yesterday  I  was  rich,  to- 
day I  am  a  pauper.  The  State  has  confiscated  my 
property,  and  yet  it  has  taken  nothing  tangible 
from  me.  It  has  simply  revoked  a  right;  with- 
drawn from  me  its  good  will.  I  discover  that 
the  essence  of  my  "  property  "  was  a  mere  abstrac- 
tion, the  good  will  of  the  State. 

In  fact,  the  vast  bulk  of  property  to-day  con- 
sists of  nothing  more  substantial  than  such  good 
will.  Suppose  that  I  owned  a  hundred  shares  of 
stock  in  the  corporation,  and  that  this  holding 
represented  just  one  per  cent,  of  its  entire  stock. 
What  was  it  that  I  really  owned,  then?  Did  I 
own  a  one-hundredth  part  of  the  plant  of  the  cor- 


102  Applied  Socialism 

poratlon?  Could  I  have  said:  "  I  will  realize  my 
property.  The  corporation  owns  one  thousand 
horses,  therefore,  I  will  take  ten  as  my  just  share; 
it  owns  a  hundred  brewing  plants  of  equal  value, 
therefore,  I  will  take  one  as  my  just  share,"  and 
so  on?  Not  at  all.  My  property  was  a  mere  ab- 
straction, not  at  all  capable  of  such  concrete  reali- 
zation. I  did  not  own  ten  horses,  but  a  one-hun- 
dredth part  of  each  horse;  not  one  brewery,  but 
a  one-hundredth  part  of  each  brick  and  each  nail 
in  each  brewery.  Of  course.  If  I  were  to  attempt 
to  realize  my  property  In  any  physical  sense  I 
could  not  have  done  it,  for  it  would  have  been  Im- 
possible to  take  the  one-hundredth  part  of  a  horse 
—  my  property  —  without  killing  the  horse,  and 
thereby  destroying  alike  my  own  property  and 
that  of  all  the  other  stockholders.  I  really  had  no 
property  in  any  tangible  form  any  more  than  I  have 
as  a  citizen  In  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art, 
or  in  the  Congressional  Library  at  Washington. 
I  had  a  right,  granted  by  the  State,  and  observed 
by  the  community,  enabling  me  to  receive  a  cer- 
tain share  of  certain  sums  of  money,  trade  profits, 
under  certain  conditions,  and  that  right  I  could 
dispose  of  by  sale  or  gift  If  I  desired  to  do  so. 
But  the  State  at  all  times  had  a  superior  right, 
which  it  finally  exercised;  a  right  to  curtail  or  alto- 
gether destroy  my  right.  Its  creature. 

Even  my   fellow  stockholders   could   have   de- 


Property  and  the  State  103 

stroyed  my  "  property  "  quite  as  effectually  as  the 
State  did  though  not  in  the  same  way.  By  voting 
in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  business  policies  which 
proved  unprofitable  and  unsuccessful,  they  could 
have  destroyed  all  my  property  together  with 
their  own,  and,  so  long  as  they  acted  under  the 
forms  prescribed  by  law,  I  could  have  no  redress, 
even  though  I  foresaw  that  the  policies  adopted 
would  be  ruinous,  and  opposed  their  adoption. 

In  almost  every  criticism  of  Socialism  much 
stress  is  laid  upon  the  fact  that  it  would,  or  at 
least  might,  involve  the  confiscation  of  a  great  deal 
of  property.  It  is  the  general  policy  of  such 
critics  to  assume  that  this  confiscatory  process  is 
something  peculiar  to  Socialism,  whereas  it  is  in 
fact  very  commonly  employed  under  the  existing 
system,  as  we  have  already  seen.  It  is  probableX 
that  the  realization  of  the  Socialist  ideal  and  pro- 
gramme would  involve  little  or  no  extension  of 
confiscatory  action;  that  the  Socialist  State  would 
not  have  recourse  to  that  principle  more  fre- 
quently than  the  State  of  to-day.  Indeed,  it  is 
not  at  all  improbable  that  confiscation  would  be 
less  frequent  than  it  is  now.  It  is  strange  that 
many  of  the  critics  who  most  vociferously  condemn 
Socialism  as  a  "  wicked  scheme  of  confiscation  " 
should  be  able  to  contemplate  with  perfect  equa- 
nimity such  confiscatory  legislation  as  some  of  our 
laws  prohibiting  the  liquor  traffic;  laws  forbidding 


I04  Applied  Socialism 

such  corporations  as  the  Standard  Oil  Company 
and  some  of  our  great  insurance  companies  from 
doing  business  in  certain  States,  and  so  on. 

Just  as  there  can  be  no  absolute  property  rights 
in  material  things,  other  than  that  which  resides 
in  the  State,  so  the  right  to  one's  own  person  is 
subordinate  to  that  same  great  ultimate  right,  the 
source  of  every  other  civil  right.  This  fact  is 
most  clearly  shown  by  the  power  which  the  State 
has,  and  which  it  often  exercises,  to  force  upon 
Its  citizens  unpleasant  and  undesirable  tasks,  such 
as  military  service,  jury  service,  police  service  In 
emergencies,  and  so  on.  Under  the  so-called 
Dick  Militia  Act,  the  President  of  the  United 
States  has  to-day  the  power  to  compel  any  male 
citizen  above  the  age  of  twenty-one  years  and 
under  the  age  of  forty-five  years  to  do  militia 
duty.^  All  that  Is  required  is  for  the  President  to 
issue  an  executive  order  to  that  effect.  This  is 
a  form  of  conscription,  at  variance  with  the  spirit 
of  our  laws,  which  was  virtually  smuggled  Into  the 
statutes  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  exist- 
ence of  which  not  one  citizen  in  ten  thousand  Is 
aware. 

To  sum  up :  The  essence  of  property  Is  the 
good  will  of  the  State,  and  the  State  is  a  constantly 
changing  force.     When  the  State  Is  despotic,  when 

^  Certain  classes  of  citizens  are  exempted  from  duty  under 
this   act. 


Property  and  the  State  lo^ 

a  personal  despot  can  say,  as  did  Louis  XIV,  "  I 
am  the  State,"  there  is  tyranny  and  all  property 
rights  are  subject  to  that  tyranny.  In  such  a 
State  property  can  only  exist  by  virtue  of  having 
its  roots  deep  in  the  soil  of  oppression  and  in- 
justice. When  in  place  of  a  personal  despotism 
a  constitutional  government  is  formed,  property 
is  relieved  from  Its  dependence  upon  a  despot.  It 
may,  however,  be  still  subject  to  class  rule,  which 
is  only  a  degree  less  oppressive  than  personal 
despotism.  When  the  State  Is  the  instrument  of 
a  class  the  right  of  property  In  it  is  still  of  necessity 
rooted  in  oppression  and  injustice. 

But  as  the  State  gradually  approaches  demo- 
cratic ideals,  becoming  representative  of  all  the 
people,  it  ceases  to  be  the  expression  of  tyranny, 
privilege  and  oppression.  It  becomes.  Instead,  the 
expression  of  the  will  of  a  fraternal  cooperation, 
aiming  only  at  the  common  good.  The  State  still 
exists,  but  It  has  outgrown  and  cast  off  its  oppres- 
sive features,  and  under  It  the  institution  of  prop- 
erty partakes  of  the  new  nature.  With  the  State 
thus  democratized  property  likewise  becomes 
democratized;  as  the  State  no  longer  represents 
injustice  and  oppression,  but  justice  and  solidarity, 
so  property,  ever  responsive  to  the  temper  of  the 
State,  becomes  likewise  the  embodiment  of  justice 
and  solidarity. 

This,  then,  is  the  aim  of  Socialism :  to  democra- 


lo6  Applied  Socialism 

the  the  State,  and  that  to  the  end  that  property 
may  also  be  democratized.  Political  democracy 
plus  industrial  democracy  —  these  are  the  twin 
principles  of  modern  Socialism. 


PRIVATE    PROPERTY    AND    INDUSTRY    UNDER    SO- 
CIALISM 

WE  are  now  in  a  position  to  sketch,  with 
some  degree  of  certainty,  the  main  fea- 
tures of  the  economic  structure  of  the 
Socialist  State,  and,  especially,  the  place  therein 
of  individual  industrial  enterprise  and  private 
property.  The  materials  for  such  a  sketch  are 
largely  contained  in  the  preceding  chapters  and 
require  only  to  be  properly  assembled. 

As  we  have  already  observed,^  there  is  nothing 
in  the  Socialist  programme,  or  in  the  principles  on 
which  that  programme  is  based,  to  justify  the  be- 
lief that  private  property  would  be  incompatible 
with  a  Socialist  regime.  Such  fair-minded  critics 
as  Schaffle  and  Conner  admit  this.^  Of  course, 
the  early  Utopian  Socialists  believed  otherwise, 
and  the  admission  of  private  property  would  have 
been  fatal  to  many  of  the  most  ingeniously  con- 
trived Utopias.     Most  of  the  Utopian  Socialists 

1  Chapter  III. 

2  Schaffle,    The   Quintessence   of  Socialism;   Conner,    The 
Socialist  State. 

107 


io8  Applied  Socialism 

were  actuated  by  a  spirit  very  similar  to  that  which 
inspired  the  early  Christian  Fathers.  They  re- 
garded private  property  as  being  essentially  evil, 
the  taproot  of  all  the  world's  miseries.  There- 
fore, they  argued,  the  happiness  of  mankind  de- 
pended upon  removing  selfishness,  the  desire  for 
possession,  and  substituting  communal  for  private 
ownership. 

It  is  true  that  private  property  was  rarely  ever 
absolutely  eliminated  from  their  schemes,  but  it 
was  generally  strictly  limited  to  the  possession  of 
wearing  apparel,  toothbrushes,  handkerchiefs,  and 
similar  articles  of  a  personal  and  intimate  nature. 
Some,  indeed,  refused  to  make  even  this  small 
concession  and  boldly  made  "  all  things  common 
to  all,"  even  to  wives,  husbands  and  children. 
The  modern  Socialist  school,  however,  has  noth- 
ing whatever  in  common  with  those  ancient 
Utopias. 

Dating  the  rise  of  the  modern  Socialist  school 
of  thought  from  1848,  the  year  In  which  the 
Communist  Manifesto  appeared,  it  must  be  said 
that,  despite  the  crude  and  confused  mass  of 
propaganda  literature  which  assailed  all  forms  of 
private  property  in  the  same  spirit  as  that  of  the 
older  Utopians,  through  its  more  serious  litera- 
ture there  runs  consistently,  like  the  main  line  of 
a  pattern  that  Is  woven  Into  a  fabric,  the  thought 
that  only  wealth  that  is  used  as  a  means  of  ex- 


Property  and  Industry  109 

ploiting  the  wealth-producers  for  the  benefit  of 
non-producers  need  be  taken  out  of  private  hands 
and  made  social  property. 

The  Manifesto  itself  struck  this  keynote  by  the 
fine  declaration  that  the  workers  sought  to  deprive 
no  man  of  "  the  power  to  appropriate  the  products 
of  society,"  but  only  to  deprive  him  of  "  the  power 
to  subjugate  the  labor  of  others  by  means  of  such 
appropriation."  The  context  to  which  these  words 
belong  makes  it  perfectly  clear  that  Marx  and 
Engels  never  contemplated  the  possibility  or  the 
desirability  of  the  State  becoming  the  sole  owner 
of  property;  that  they  saw  no  objection  to  private 
property  per  se,  but  only  to  the  private  ownership 
of  such  means  of  production  and  such  stores  of 
wealth  as  would  enable  the  owners  thereof  to  op- 
press others  by  exploiting  their  labor.  They  had 
no  desire  to  forbid  private  initiative  or  thrift,  but 
only  a  passionate  desire  to  destroy  class  rule  and 
privilege. 

In  the  same  spirit,  Kautsky,  universally  regarded 
as  the  most  correct  and  "  orthodox  "  of  Marx's 
interpreters,  has  repeatedly  shown  that  the  So- 
cialist State  would  not  interfere  with  the  private 
ownership  of  non-productive  wealth.  In  his  ad- 
mirable exposition  of  the  Erfurter  Programm  of 
the  German  Social  Democracy,  Kautsky  declares: 

"  Even  though  the  course  of  events  should 
force   the   transition   from   capitalist   to   Socialist 


no  Applied  Socialism 

production  via  the  road  of  confiscation,  the 
economic  development  that  has  preceded  us  would 
render  necessary  the  confiscation  of  only  a  part  of 
existing  property.  The  economic  development 
demands  social  ownership  in  the  implements  of 
labor  only;  It  does  not  concern  Itself  with,  nor 
does  it  touch,  that  part  of  property  that  Is  devoted 
to  personal  and  private  uses.  Let  us  take  one  Il- 
lustration, furnished  by  capitalism  Itself.  What 
are  savings  banks?  They  are  the  means  whereby 
the  private  property  of  non-capitalist  classes  is 
rendered  accessible  to  the  capitalists;  the  deposits 
of  every  single  depositor  are,  taken  separately, 
too  Insignificant  to  be  applied  to  a  capitalist 
Industry;  not  until  many  deposits  have  been 
gathered  together  are  they  in  a  condition  to  ful- 
fill the  function  of  '  capital.'  In  the  same  meas- 
ure In  which  capitalist  undertakings  shall  pass 
from  private  Into  social  concerns,  the  opportuni- 
ties will  be  lessened  for  would-be  patrons  of  sav- 
ings banks  to  receive  Interest  upon  their  deposits: 
these  will  cease  to  be  capital  and  will  become 
purely  non-interest-drawing  funds.  That,  as- 
suredly, is  not  confiscation."  ^ 

If  we  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument 
merely,  that  it  would  be  necessary  for  the  Social- 
ist State  to  suppress  all  private  Industrial  enter- 

"^  Das  Erjurter  Program  m. 


Property  and  Industry  1 1 1 

prise,  and  to  establish  an  absolute  monopoly  of 
production  and  distribution,  private  property- 
would  not  necessarily  be  abolished.  Even  if  all 
citizens  were  housed  in  barracks,  like  soldiers,  fed 
at  communal  tables  and  clothed  in  uniforms,  as 
some  critics  have  imagined  would  be  the  case,  it 
would  be  practically  Impossible  to  do  away  with 
the  private  ownership  of  the  uniforms,  tooth- 
brushes, and  many  similar  articles. 

With  all  production  and  distribution  absolutely 
monopolized  by  the  State  It  would  be  necessary 
to  devise  some  method  of  remuneration,  some 
distribution  of  the  necessities  of  life  and  such 
luxuries  as  the  State  might  produce.  Subject  only 
to  the  ultimate  superior  right  of  the  State  which  is 
a  fundamental  principle  of  all  civilized  society,  the 
products  so  distributed  would  belong  to  those  who 
received  them  from  the  State.  That  the  State 
could  by  any  possibility  so  adjust  the  income  of 
every  individual,  whether  measured  in  money  or 
goods,  as  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  a  surplus 
is  a  palpably  absurd  proposition.  It  is  equally 
inconceivable  that  the  most  omniscient  govern- 
ment would  be  able  to  prevent  the  hoarding  of 
such  surplusage  by  individuals  of  abnormally  de- 
veloped acquisitiveness.  To  accomplish  that  re- 
sult —  to  which  there  could  not  be  any  adequate 
or  rational  incentive  —  It  would  be  necessary  to 


112  Applied  Socialism 

create  a  vast  system  of  espionage  and  regulation 
that  would  absorb  far  more  labor  than  the  pro- 
duction and  distribution  of  wealth. 

A  time-worn  device  of  the  Utopian  Socialists 
provides  for  the  remuneration  of  labor  by  means 
of  labor  certificates  or  checks,  based  upon  time 
units.  Equality  of  remuneration  for  all  kinds  of 
service  is  generally  provided  for  in  all  such 
schemes.  But  the  device  does  not  remove  the  in- 
evitability of  private  property.  If  the  annual  in- 
come be  stated  as  certificates  representing  two 
thousand  units,  and  the  absolutely  necessary  ex- 
penditures for  A  and  B  be  stated  as  fifteen  hun- 
dred units,  one  fourth  of  their  incomes,  a  balance 
of  five  hundred  units  remains  for  purposes  other 
than  the  acquisition  of  the  bare  necessities  of  life. 
If  A  chooses  to  spend  his  surplus  income  upon 
wine,  or  flowers,  or  give  it  away,  and  B  chooses 
to  spend  his  upon  costly  books,  or  a  flying  ma- 
chine, or  to  save  it  with  a  view  to  the  ultimate 
purchase  of  a  yacht,  upon  what  grounds  shall  the 
State  forbid? 

If  it  were  the  aim  of  the  Socialist  movement  to 
establish  and  maintain  equality  of  possession  It 
would  be  necessary  to  deny  the  right  of  the  frugal 
and  abstemious  B  to  the  books,  the  flying  machine 
or  the  yacht.  It  would  not  be  necessary,  how- 
ever, to  deny  the  spendthrift  A  the  right  to 
gratify  his  taste  for  consumable  luxuries,  like  wine 


Property  and  Industry  113 

Dr  costly  flowers.  Unjust  as  It  would  undoubt- 
edly be  to  insist  that  while  A  has  a  right  to  spend 
his  surplus  income  upon  a  rapidly  consumable 
luxury  B  has  not  an  equal  right  to  spend  his  sur- 
plus income  upon  a  more  durable  luxury,  no  other 
method  would  suffice  to  bring  about  the  absolute 
equalization  of  property.  If  the  aim  of  the  So- 
cialist movement  was  the  realization  of  the  ideal 
of  absolute  equality  of  possession,  therefore, 
every  form  of  private  property  would  have  to  be 
abolished,  and  everything  made  subject  to  col- 
lective ownership. 

Now,  equality  of  remuneration,  regardless  of 
the  nature  of  the  service  performed,  is  by  no  means 
an  essential  feature  of  the  economy  of  Socialism. 
The  principle  has  been  advocated  by  only  a  few 
extremists  of  the  Utopian  school.  But,  granting 
for  the  moment  its  necessity,  for  the  purpose  of 
lending  emphasis  to  our  illustration.  It  Is  evident 
that  having  received  exactly  equal  incomes,  neither 
A  nor  B  could  justly  complain.  A  could  not  com- 
plain because,  having  spent  his  surplus  upon  wine, 
he  could  not  have  a  flying  machine  like  B,  who  ab- 
stained from  the  use  of  wine  In  order  to  acquire 
the  flying  machine.  True,  either  A  or  B,  or  both 
of  them,  might  complain  against  the  restriction  of 
income  which  made  It  Impossible  to  satisfy  all  their 
tastes,  but  there  would  be  no  inequality  of  op- 
portunity and  reward  of  which  to  complain. 


114  Applied  Socialism 

To  admit  so  much  is  to  admit  the  possibility  of 
considerable  inequality  of  wealth  under  Socialism. 
While  equality  of  opportunity,  and  the  elimination 
of  economic  class  exploitation  would  naturally  tend 
toward  greater  equality  of  possession  than  the 
world  has  known  since  the  development  of  private 
property,  neither  uniformity  nor  equality  of  pos- 
session would  result.  Whatever  restrictions  of 
the  inheritance  of  property  might  be  imposed  by 
the  State,  It  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  any 
people  would  tolerate  such  a  repressive  measure  as 
the  absolute  prohibition  of  Inheritance,  Including 
the  Inheritance  of  personal  mementoes  and  heir- 
looms, the  value  of  which  Is  more  often  senti- 
mental than  Intrinsic. 

The  most  trifling  object,  wholly  without  value, 
and  so  insignificant  that  it  is  impossible  to  think 
seriously  of  any  State  attempting  to  deprive  its 
owner  of  it,  may  become  an  object  of  great  In- 
terest and  almost  fabulous  value.  A  lock  of 
mother's  hair  inherited  by  an  affectionate  and 
worshipful  son,  an  Inestimable  treasure  to  its  pos- 
sessor, which  he  would  not  sell  for  an  Immense 
fortune,  might  have  no  value  to  another  person, 
or  to  the  community.  But  should  the  discovery  of 
an  old  package  of  letters  identify  the  woman  to 
whom  the  hair  originally  belonged  as  the  subject 
of  a  great  picture  or  poem,  the  heroine  of  some 
great  romance,  or  some  other  discovery  rescue  her 


Property  and  Industry  115 

memory  from  oblivion  and  make  it  famous,  the 
lock  of  hair  might  become  a  greatly  coveted  ob- 
ject. 

Thus  the  inheritance  of  an  object  of  no  value  at 
the  time  of  the  inheritance  might  easily  make  the 
heir  richer  than  his  fellow  men.  One  has  but  to 
think  of  the  sacrifices  men  have  made,  and  the 
sufferings  men  have  endured,  to  acquire  owner- 
ship of  some  object  of  unique  rarity  —  a  black 
tulip,  a  rare  stamp,  or  a  unique  book,  for  instance 
—  to  realize  that  many  a  man  might  be  willing  to 
sacrifice  a  large  part  of  his  income,  or  even  endure 
servitude  for  years,  in  order  to  acquire  possession 
of  some  unique  object  which  the  vendor  acquired 
by  inheritance.  The  illustration  may  seem  forced 
and  extreme,  and  it  may  be  admitted  that  such  in- 
cidents would  not  be  likely  to  affect  profoundly 
the  life  of  the  nation,  but  the  illustration  serves 
admirably  to  elucidate  a  principle  of  great  interest 
and  value. 

Summarizing  this  phase  of  our  discussion,  we 
may  say  that,  accepting  the  class  struggle  as  the 
central  motif  of  modern  Socialism,  and  bearing  in 
mind  the  uniform  insistence  of  all  the  recognized 
leaders  of  Socialist  thought  that  what  is  to  be  de- 
stroyed is  the  power  to  exploit  the  labor  of 
others,  and  not  the  power  to  appropriate  and  en- 
joy the  products  of  labor,  we  may  regard  as  axio- 
matic the  following  propositions : 


Il6  Applied  Socialism 

(i)  Socialism  does  not  aim  at  the  abolition  of  private 
property. 

(2)  Socialism  is  not  incompatible  with  a  wide  extension  of 
private  property. 

(3)  Socialism  would  make  private  property  much  more 
general  than  now  by  destroying  the  power  of  exploita- 
tion which  makes  a  few  rich  and  many  poor, 

(4)  Socialism  would  not  do  away  with  the  private  accu- 
mulation of  surplus  income,  nor,  necessarily,  with  the 
inheritance  of  such  accumulations. 

(5)  Socialism  would  not  result  in  absolute  equality  of 
wealth,  but  a  greater  degree  of  equalization  than 
has  yet  been  attained  would  naturally  result  from  the 
elimination  of   economic  class  exploitation. 

The  second  phase  of  our  discussion  concerns  the 
industrial  organization  of  the  Socialist  State,  and 
the  place  In  it  of  private  industrial  enterprise.     As 
we  have  already  seen,  Socialism  does  not  Involve 
/       the    absolute   monopolization   of  production    and 
/        distribution,  and  the  total  suppression  of  private 
/         initiative   and  enterprise   in   these  spheres.     The 
economic  organization  of  the  Socialist  State  will 
undoubtedly   include   production  and   distribution 
by  individuals  and  voluntary  cooperative  groups, 
as  well  as  collective  production  and  distribution 
under  the  auspices  and  control  of  the  State  Itself. 
I  use  the  word  "  undoubtedly  "  because  It  is  un- 
1         thinkable  that  a  democratic  State  would  attempt  to 
\         Impose  upon  its  citizens  a  tyranny  so  odious  and 
\       intolerable  as  would  certainly  result  from  the  sup- 
pression of  voluntary  enterprise. 


Property  and  Industry  1 12 

In  all  our  thought  upon  this  question  we  must 
bear  in  mind  that  the  two  principal  economic  argu- 
ments for  socialization  are  :  First,  the  elimination 
of  economic  parasitism,  the  exploitattofi^of^ltie" 
wealth  producers  by  a  class  of  non^producers,  and^^ 
second,  the  attainment  of  greater  efficiencyjhrpugh 
the  eliminatiori_j3f  the  wastefulness  inseparable 
from  capitalist  production,_^s2ecially  in  its  com- 
petitive_  stages^ 

The  first  of  these  reasons  constitutes  the  prime 
motive  of  the  Socialist  movement.  The  second, 
less  frequently  urged  by  the  Socialist  propagandist 
than  formerly,  is  the  raison  d' etre  of  the  develop- 
ment of  monopoly.  Every  thoughtful  Socialist 
recognizes  that  capitalist  production  involves  an 
enormous  amount  of  waste,  and  that  Incalculable 
gains  would  result  from  the  socialization  of  in- 
dustry. But  while  a  few  Socialists  may  be  in- 
fluenced mainly  by  their  hope  and  belief  that  in  a 
Socialist  regime  industry  would  be  much  more 
economically  and  efficiently  conducted  than  now, 
the  vast  majority  are  influenced  by  the  other  rea- 
son. The  doctrine  of  thecla^s__struggle_is_the 
central  Idea  of  the  rnovement,  and  most  of  its 
adherents  are  inspired  and  urgedjHLby  the  hjipe  / 
that  Socialism  will  put  an  end  to  economic  explolr 
tatlon.  T 

The  greater  part  of  the  production  and  distri- 
bution of  our  present  economic  system  is  so  organ- 


Ii8  Applied  Socialism 

ized  that  the  exploitation  of  the  workers  engaged 
In  It  Is  Inevitable.  The  work  Is  performed  by 
wage-paid  laborers,  superintended  by  salaried  of- 
ficials. The  costly  equipment  Is  not  owned  by  the 
workers,  but  by  Investors  seeking  to  make  profit 
through  the  exploitation  of  the  labor-power  of  the 
workers  they  employ 

It  Is  a  fundamental  condition  of  Socialism  that 
all  such  processes  and  functions  be  socialized.  In 
other  words,  It  Is  a  sine  qua  non  of  Socialism  that 
they  be  so  organized  as  to  eliminate  profit-making 
by  Investors.  This  does  not  mean  that  they  must 
all  be  taken  over  by  the  supreme  political  organi- 
zation which  we  call  the  State.  Nor  does  It  mean 
that  they  must  all  be  socialized  at  once.  A  few 
advocates  of  Socialism,  more  zealous  than  Intelli- 
gent, seem  to  believe  that  there  will  be  a  grand 
transformation  day  upon  which  all  the  functions 
of  capitalism  will  be  socialized,  but  that  idea  Is 
not  held  by  thoughtful  Socialists.  It  Is  In  fact 
fundamentally  opposed  to  the  philosophical  basis 
of  modern  Marxian  Socialism. 

Great  organizations  like  the  Steel  Trust  repre- 
sent the  progress  already  made  in  the  direction  of 
Socialism  through  one  channel.  Measures  for 
the  government  regulation  of  monopolies  now  be- 
ing advocated  by  conservative  non-Socialists  indi- 
cate an  increasing  readiness  to  make  progress  In 
the  same  direction  through  another  channel,  the 


Property  and  Industry  1 19 

channel  of  political  organization.  The  process  of 
socialization  is  essentially  an  evolutionary  one. 

The  incentive  which  operates  to  bring  about  the 
socialization  of  industries  conducted  for  profit  ob- 
tained from  the  exploitation  of  the  workers,  ob- 
viously does  not  exist  in  the  case  of  petty,  indi- 
vidualistic industries  which  do  not  depend  upon 
such  exploitation.  The  market  gardener  who 
cultivates  his  own  land  and  sells  his  produce  with- 
out exploiting  the  labor  of  others,  and  the  indi- 
vidual craftsman  who  does  all  his  own  work,  like- 
wise without  exploiting  the  labor  of  others,  il- 
lustrate very  clearly  the  distinctive  character  of 
enterprises  which  are  not  characterized  by  class  ex- 
ploitation. There  is  a  much  larger  number  of 
these  enterprises,  both  productive  and  distributive, 
than  is  generally  recognized.  It  is  exceedingly 
probable  that  a  large  number  of  them  will  con- 
tinue to  exist,  as  individual  enterprises,  in  the  So- 
cialist regime.  Others  may  be  organized  and  so- 
cialized. If  so,  it  will  be  for  the  sake  of  obtaining 
increased  efficiency,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of 
doing  away  with  economic  exploitation.  The  mo- 
tive for  socialization  will  be  social  interest,  not 
the  interest  of  a  class. 

It  seems  probable,  then,  that  in  the  Socialist 
State  three  forms  of  economic  enterprise  will  co- 
exist, namely,  ( i )  production  and  distribution  on 
^  large  scale  under  the  auspices  of  the  government 


I20  Applied  Socialism 

—  national,  state  or  municipal;  (2)  production 
and  distribution  by  cooperative  associations;  (3) 
production  and  distribution  by  private  individuals. 
To  regulate  properly  the  relation  of  these  three 
divisions  will  be  the  supreme  task  of  the  demo- 
cratic statesmanship  of  the  future. 

There  are  some  economic  activities  which  from 
their  very  nature  require  a  national  organization 
for  their  most  efficient  direction.  This  is  true  of 
railways,  telegraphs,  postal  and  express  services 
among  distributive  agencies,  and  of  mining,  oil 
production,  and  steel  manufacture  among  the  pro- 
ductive functions.  There  are  other  economic 
activities  which  can  be  most  efficiently  directed  by 
the  smaller  unit,  the  State  or  Province,  and  yet 
others  which  can  be  most  efficiently  conducted  by 
the  still  smaller  political  unit,  the  city  or  com- 
mune. 

It  is  Impossible  to  make  a  rigid  classification  of 
the  economic  functions  and  decide  to  which  politi- 
cal unit  each  will  be  entrusted.  Moreover,  were 
such  a  classification  possible  it  would  not  be  of 
much  value.  The  Socialist  State  will  Inherit  the 
economic  organization  of  the  capitalist  system,  and 
will  modify  it  In  the  light  of  its  experience  and 
according  to  the  needs  of  Its  economic  develop- 
ment. The  economic  functions  entrusted  at  first 
to  municipalities  may  later  be  transferred  to  the 
larger  units,  the  States  and  provinces,  the  citizens 


Property  and  Industry  121 

choosing  a  greater  degree  of  centralization  in  the 
interests  of  efficiency.  On  the  other  hand,  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  decentralization  may  take  place. 

The  important  point  is  that  a  centralized 
bureaucracy  is  not  an  inevitable  condition  of  the 
Socialist  State.  There  is  not  the  slightest  com- 
promise of  Socialist  principles  in  the  suggestion  of 
Bebel/  Menger,"  and  Hillquit  ^  that  the  functions 
of  the  municipality  might  very  well  be  extended 
to  manufacture.  All  three  writers  agree  that  the 
largest  possible  measure  of  home  rule  would  of 
necessity  be  accorded  to  the  municipahties,  and 
they  suggest  that  the  larger  municipalities  may  be 
divided  into  autonomous  districts,  each  maintain- 
ing its  own  industrial  organization. 

The  State,  using  the  term  in  its  most  compre- 
hensive sense  to  cover  the  whole  political  organi- 
zation of  society,  thus  assumes  the  functions  now 
performed  by  the  capitalist  class  in  the  employ- 
ment, direction  and  superintendence  of  labor. 
Naturally,  the  relations  of  the  State  to  the  indi- 
vidual worker  will  differ  materially  from  those 
which  now  exist  between  employer  and  employe. 
The  position  of  the  worker  will  be  somewhat 
analogous  to  that  of  the  employe  who  is  also  a 

1  August  Bebel,  Woman  and  Socialism,  p.  130. 
-  Anton  Menger,  Neue  Staatslelire,  pp.  199-200. 
3  Morris    Hillquit,    Socialism    in    Theory    and    Practice,   pp. 
135-137. 


122  Applied  Socialism 

shareholder  In  the  concern  for  which  he  works. 
For  while  the  State  will  be  the  employer,  the  em- 
ploye will  be  a  citizen,  a  part  of  the  State. 
Nevertheless,  the  State  must  be  superior  to  the 
employe,  and  the  employe  subordinate  to  the 
State.  Misunderstandings  and  conflicts  between 
them  are,  therefore,  not  only  possible  but  highly 
probable  —  perhaps  inevitable. 

The  organization  of  this  relationship  consti- 
tutes the  most  obvious  and  the  most  difl'icult  prob- 
lem which  we  must  confront.  How  will  the  super- 
intendents be  chosen,  and  by  whom?  How  will 
wages,  hours  of  labor,  and  other  terms  of  em- 
ployment be  determined?  Will  there  be  labor 
unions,  strikes  and  lockouts?  These  and  many 
similar  questions  must  be  met  and  answered  with 
candor. 

The  attempts  of  Socialist  writers  to  forecast 
the  solution  of  this  problem  of  the  relation  of  the 
State  as  employer  to  the  citizen  as  employe  may 
be  sharply  divided  into  two  classes.  The  fore- 
casts of  those  who  are  mainly  interested  in  the 
great  economies  of  production  and  exchange 
which  they  believe  will  result  from  the  superior 
economic  organization  of  the  Socialist  State  dif- 
fer materially  from  the  forecasts  of  those  who 
are  mainly  interested  in  the  new  status  which  the 
Socialist  State  will  confer  upon  the  producing  class. 


Property  and  Industry  123 

The  first  class  idealizes  the  expert  and  relies  upon 
the  methods  now  generally  followed  by  municipal 
bodies,  the  employment  of  experts  as  superintend- 
ents and  foremen  by  administrative  committees 
chosen  by  the  popularly  elected  governing  body. 
The  functions  of  these  administrative  committees 
would  not  differ  greatly  from  those  now  performed 
by  the  boards  of  directors  of  industrial  corpora- 
tions. They  would  have  power  to  appoint  and 
discharge  managers  and  foremen,  and  to  regulate 
the  conditions  of  employment,  including,  of 
course,  the  remuneration  of  labor. 

Against  this  simple  collectivist  view,  which  many 
Socialists  condemn  as  undemocratic,  we  may 
place  the  view  of  Gronlund,^  and  many  others, 
that  the  foremen  and  managers  in  each  industry 
will  probably  be  elected  by  the  workers  employed 
in  it.  Obviously  this  suggestion  is  the  child  of  a 
great  and  inspiring  vision  of  a  new  social  status 
for  the  producing  class.  The  idea  is  sometimes 
carried  so  far  that  it  is  seriously  suggested  that 
the  labor  unions  will  select  managers  and  de- 
termine the  hours  and  wages  of  labor.  The  adop- 
tion of  this  essentially  unsocial  suggestion  by  So- 
cialists is  a  curious  illustration  of  the  intellectual 
myopia  which  often  afflicts  the  propagandist. 

1  Laurence  Gronlund,   The  Cooperative   Commonvjealth,  p. 
186. 


124  Applied  Socialism 

Menger  ^  suggests  that  the  managers  and  fore- 
men will  be  appointed  by  the  popularly  elected 
governmental  bodies.  At  the  same  time  he  does 
not  wholly  dismiss  Gronlund's  suggestion  but  re- 
gards it  as  a  possible  ultimate  goal.  Even  such 
a  conservative  thinker  as  Hillquit  adopts  Gron- 
lund's suggestion,  and  can  see  "  no  valid  reason 
why  the  managers  and  foremen  of  the  '  labor 
group  '  should  not  be  elected  by  the  group  mem- 
bers." ^  This  unqualified  acceptance  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  Gronlund's  proposal  by  such  a  remarkably 
acute  thinker  proves  that  the  plan  is  not  one  to  be 
lightly  dismissed.  Wise  or  unwise,  it  has  com- 
mended itself  to  many  very  thoughtful  minds. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  enter  Into  a  detailed  dis- 
cussion of  the  difficulties  of  this  method  and  the 
many  objections  to  it.  It  is  sufficient  to  point  out 
its  central  defect,  namely,  its  essentially  anti-so- 
cial and  undemocratic  character.  From  this  point 
of  view  it  is  quite  as  objectionable  as  the  plan  to 
have  the  managers  and  foremen  appointed  and 
the  conditions  and  terms  of  employment  regulated 
by  governmental  committees.  It  would  be  quite 
as  incompatible  with  democracy  to  have  such  mat- 
ters determined  by  the  workers  alone  without 
reference  to  the  will  of  the  general  body  of  citizens 

1  Anton  Menger,  Neue  Staatslehre,  Second  Edition,  pp.  199- 
200. 

-Morris  Hillquit,  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  p.  136. 


Property  and  Industry  125 

as  to  have  the  workers  excluded  from  participa- 
tion in  the  settlement  of  such  matters.  Industrial 
democracy  requires  that  the  workers  must  have  a 
very  much  larger  share  in  the  organization  and 
management  of  their  work  than  is  the  rule  to-day, 
even  in  our  State  and  municipal  enterprises.  As 
I  have  elsewhere  said:  "  It  is  perfectly  clear  that 
if  the  industrial  organization  under  Socialism  is  to 
be  such  that  the  workers  employed  in  any  industry 
have  no  more  voice  in  its  management  than  the 
postal  employes  in  this  country,  for  example,  have 
at  the  present  time,  it  cannot  be  otherwise  than 
absurd  to  speak  of  it  as  an  industrial  democracy."  ^ 
It  would  be  equally  undemocratic  to  give  the 
power  of  selecting  the  Postmaster-General  and 
other  directing  officials  of  such  an  important  public 
service  to  the  employes  only.  Not  only  is  it 
probable  that,  as  pointed  out  many  years  ago  by 
Mrs.  Besant,2  the  plan  would  neither  work  well  in 
practice  nor  be  consistent  with  the  discipline  neces- 
sary in  carrying  on  any  large  business  undertaking, 
but  it  would  place  the  whole  people  at  the  mercy  of 
a  relatively  small  number.  The  plan  would  result 
in  an  industrial  hierarchy,  essentially  undemo- 
cratic, and  open  to  the  gravest  and  most  dangerous 
abuses.     The  workers  engaged  in  those  services 

''^  Socialism,  a  Summary  and  Interpretation  of  Socialist  Prin- 
ciples, New  and  Revised  Edition,  p.  303. 
2  In  Fabian  Essays. 


126  Applied  Socialism 

in  which  a  temporary  cessation  of  work  would  be- 
come immediately  a  serious  menace  to  the  general 
welfare,  say  the  railroad  workers,  would  be  in  a 
position  of  great  advantage  as  compared  with  the 
workers  in  an  industry  the  temporary  cessation  of 
which  would  involve  less  suffering  —  the  weavers, 
for  example. 

Inseparable  from  such  a  system  would  be  the 
danger  of  conflict  between  the  decisions  of  the 
workers  engaged  in  important  branches  of  the  in- 
dustrial organization  and  the  interests  of  the 
people  as  a  whole.  The  experience  of  the  French 
government  with  its  railroad  employes  points  to 
the  imperative  necessity  of  some  modification  of 
labor  unionism  as  we  know  it  to-day  to  make  it 
compatible  with  collective  ownership.  We  may 
not  agree  with  the  English  Socialist,  J.  H. 
Harley,^  that  labor  unionism  and  collective 
ownership  are  antagonistic,  but  we  can  hardly 
escape  the  conclusion  that  the  attitude  which  the 
labor  unions  of  to-day  very  properly  take  in  in- 
dustrial conflicts  would  not  be  tolerated  if 
adopted  against  the  State.  In  self-protection  the 
State  would  be  obliged  to  treat  as  treasonable,  acts 
which  are  perfectly  proper  and  justifiable  when 
directed  against  individual  or  corporate  employers. 

It  is  very  evident,  therefore,  that  some  way  must 
be   found  to  base  the  Industrial  organization   of 

*  Harley,  The  Nc%v  Social  Democracy.    London,  191 1. 


Property  and  Industry  127 

the  Socialist  State  upon  the  dual  basis  of  the  in- 
terests of  the  whole  citizenry  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  special  interests  of  the  workers  as  such  upon 
the  other  hand.  One  Socialist  writer  has  gravely 
proposed  the  establishment  of  an  elective  "  in- 
dustrial parliament  of  two  chambers,  in  one  of 
which  representation  will  be  according  to  numbers, 
while  in  the  other  every  industry  will  be  repre« 
sented  irrespective  of  size."  ^  This  plan  is  put 
forward  as  an  alternative  to  the  bureaucratic 
method  of  leaving  all  matters  relating  to  the  man- 
agement of  industry  in  the  hands  of  government 
boards.  Presumably  these  representatives  to  this 
bicameral  parliament  are  to  be  elected  by  the 
workers  employed  in  the  various  industries.  The 
author  does  not  make  clear  whether  the  industrial 
parliament  is  to  be  an  advisory  body  merely,  or 
whether  its  decisions  will  be  binding.  If  the  lat- 
ter, the  plan  is  open  to  the  same  objection  as  that 
of  Gronlund,  which  it  resembles;  if  the  former, 
the  plan  is  too  cumbersome  and  wasteful. 

One  weakness  is  common  to  all  such  ingenious 
devices.  They  are  all  essentially  Utopian. 
Based  upon  abstract  principles,  they  fail  to  take 
into  account  the  important  fact  that  society  is  an 
organism  subject  to  the  laws  of  evolution.  So- 
cial institutions  are  never  the  result  of  the  deliber- 
ate adoption  of  clever  inventions.  It  is  easy 
1  Edmond  Kelly,  Tiveniieth  Century  Socialism,  pp.  305-306. 


128  Applied  Socialism 

enough  and  harmless  enough  for  the  believer  in  a 
certain  form  of  social  organization  to  sit  down 
and  ask  himself:  "What  institutions  and  what 
methods  will  best  serve  that  form  of  social  or- 
ganization in  which  I  believe?  "  but  we  must  not 
be  disappointed  if  quite  other  institutions  and 
methods  are  developed. 

Socialism  is  the  child  of  capitalism.  If  the  So- 
cialist State  is  ever  realized  at  all  it  will  be  a  de- 
velopment of  the  capitalist  State,  not  a  new  cre- 
ation. Many  of  us  believe  that  the  transition 
from  capitalism  will  be  a  tranquil  process,  stretch- 
ing over  a  period  of  many  years;  that  the  "So- 
cial Revolution  "  of  which  we  hear  so  much,  in- 
stead of  being  a  terrible  upheaval  attended  with 
an  enormous  amount  of  violence  and  suffering, 
which  even  the  stoutest  hearts  must  anticipate  with 
anxiety,  is  a  long-drawn  process  of  social  effort 
and  experiment.  The  Social  Revolution  is  not  a 
sanguinary  episode  which  must  attend  the  birth 
of  the  new  social  order.  It  is  a  long  period  of 
effort,  experiment  and  adjustment,  and  is  now  tak- 
ing place. 

The  acceptance  of  this  evolutionary  view  will 
save  us  from  wasting  time  and  energy  in  devising 
social  institutions  and  methods  to  conform  with 
abstract  principles.  Instead,  we  shall  seek  the 
beginnings  of  such  institutions  and  methods  as  the 
new  epoch  will  require  within  the  present  order, 


Property  and  Industry  129 

together  with  the  beginning  of  the  new  epoch  it- 
self. 

From  this  point  of  view  our  problem  at  once 
appears  much  simpler.  The  organization  of  the 
industrial  affairs  of  the  Socialist  State  upon  the 
dual  basis  of  the  common  civic  rights  of  all  and 
the  special  interests  of  the  workers  is  not  an  im- 
possible ideal,  but  a  condition  which  is  being 
gradually  evolved  within  the  existing  capitalist 
State.  The  labor  unions  are  at  present,  in  the 
main,  organizations  for  class  warfare.  Their 
business  is  fighting  the  employing  class.  But 
there  are  not  wanting  signs  that  the  labor  union  is 
capable  of  a  large  constructive  and  administrative 
activity.  In  those  industries  in  which  the  organi- 
zation of  the  workers  has  been  most  successful  it 
is  fairly  common  even  now  for  the  unions  to  ex- 
ercise a  very  considerable  amount  of  control  over 
the  conditions  of  employment  of  their  members. 
By  hard  fighting  the  workers  have  gained  the 
right  to  share  in  the  control  of  their  industrial 
life.  They  make  trade  agreements  upon  such 
matters  of  vital  importance  as  wages,  hours  of 
labor,  protection  against  accidents,  apprenticeship, 
engagement  and  discharge  of  workers,  duties  and 
powers  of  foremen,  and  so  on,  the  list  of  things 
thus  made  subject  to  the  joint  control  of  the  work- 
ers and  their  employers  covering  the  most  impor- 
tant phases  of  industrial  life. 


130  Applied  Socialism 

It  Is  by  no  means  uncommon  for  all  such  mat- 
ters to  be  regulated  by  joint  boards  of  employers 
and  employes/  and  the  Socialist  State  will  in  all 
probability  build  its  industrial  policy  upon  the 
foundations  laid  by  capitalist  industry  in  this  as  in 
most  other  particulars.  Of  course,  no  man  can 
say  what  methods  will  eventually  be  evolved  by 
the  Socialist  State.  Our  present  concern  is  with 
the  more  immediately  practical  matter  of  the 
methods  available  in  its  early  stages,  the  transi- 
tion from  capitalism  to  Socialism.  There  is  no 
apparent  reason  why  the  industrial  policy  of  the 
Socialist  State,  including  in  that  term  the  adjust- 
ment of  every  relation  between  the  State  as  em- 
ployer and  the  citizen  as  employe,  should  not  be 
determined  by  joint  boards  composed  of  repre- 
sentatives of  the  workers  engaged  in  certain  trades 
or  groups  of  trades  and  representatives  of  the  de- 
partments of  the  State  responsible  for  the  adminis- 

1 "  The  Filene  Stores,  of  Boston,  a  shareholding  company 
employing  seven  to  nine  hundred  men,  has  gone  farthest  of  all 
in  the  direction  of  making  its  employes  joint  owners.  The  cap- 
ital stock  is  held  only  by  employes.  .  .  .  The  most  important 
advance  is  that  all  questions  are  submitted  to  arbitration,  not 
only  complaints  or  disputes,  but  ivages,  scope  of  ivork  and 
tenure  of  employment.  More  than  four  hundred  cases  of  arbi- 
tration have  arisen.  .  .  .  When  an  employe  is  discharged  he 
has  the  right  of  appeal  to  an  arbitration  board  composed  of 
fellovj  employes  of  different  grades.  All  wage  disputes  have 
been  satisfactorily  settled." — Andrew  Carnegie,  Problems  of 
To-Day,  pp.  73-74.     [Italics  mine.     J.  S.] 


Property  and  Industry  131 

tration  of  those  branches  of  industry.  Provision 
for  the  arbitration  of  matters  upon  which  such 
boards  could  not  agree  could  easily  be  made. 
Such  a  method  would  meet  the  requirements  of 
democracy  and  avoid  the  evils  necessarily  In- 
volved In  leaving  the  regulation  of  such  matters 
as  the  conditions  and  remuneration  of  labor  to  the 
State  on  the  one  hand,  or  to  the  workers  on  the 
other. 

One  other  problem  remains  to  be  faced,  namely, 
the  regulation  of  the  relations  existing  between  the 
Socialist  State  and  voluntary  industrial  enterprise. 

The  voluntary  Industrial  enterprise  possible 
within  a  Socialist  State  may  be  divided  Into  two 
classes :  ( i )  production  and  distribution  by 
voluntary  cooperative  associations;  (2)  produc- 
tion and  distribution  by  Individuals.  It  Is  quite 
evident  that  both  forms  of  voluntary  effort  would 
have  to  be  subject  to  the  regulative  power  of  the 
State.  The  regulation  of  voluntary  industrial  and 
commercial  enterprises  constitutes  a  very  large  part 
of  the  work  of  the  State  to-day,  so  the  Socialist 
State  In  asserting  the  right  to  prescribe  the  condi- 
tions under  which  production  or  distribution  might 
be  carried  on  outside  its  own  organization  would 
not  be  instituting  a  new  principle  of  jurisprudence. 

Let  us  take  the  manufacture  of  shoes  as  an  Il- 
lustration: We  will  suppose  that  the  people  of 
the  nation  decide  to  "  socialize  "  the  manufacture 


132  Applied  Socialism 

of  shoes.  To  the  making  of  that  decision  several 
forces  contribute.  Some  people,  possibly  a  ma- 
jority, resent  the  exploitation  of  the  producer  and 
aim  thus  to  end  it;  others  resent  the  exploitation 
of  the  consumer,  through  extortionate  prices, 
and  hope  thus  to  end  it;  still  others  resent  the 
waste  of  effort  Inseparable  from  capitalistic  manu- 
facture and  trading  and  hope  thus  to  end  It. 
Motived  by  very  different  considerations,  these 
three  classes  of  people,  constituting  an  overwhelm- 
ing majority  of  the  nation,  unite  In  bringing  about 
collectlvist  shoe  production  and  distribution. 

The  various  State  and  municipal  governments 
establish  big  factories  and  distributing  depots  for 
the  production  and  distribution  of  shoes.  Thus  a 
capitalist  monopoly  becomes  transformed  Into  a 
public  or  social  monopoly.  Between  the  two  kinds 
of  monopoly  the  all  Important  difference  Is  that 
while  the  capitalist  monopoly  serves  the  interest 
of  a  few  investors,  through  the  exploitation  of 
the  labor  and  needs  of  the  many,  the  social 
monopoly  conserves  the  Interests  of  all  the  people, 
and  permits  no  class  of  Investors  to  exploit  the 
labor  and  needs  of  another  class. 

Now,  Citizen  Jones,  being  an  employe  of  the 
municipality  In  its  big  collectlvist  shoe  factory, 
conceives  the  idea  that  machine-made  shoes  are 
an  abomination,  and  a  great  desire  to  go  back  to 
the  old  method  of  making  shoes  by  hand.     Will 


Property  and  Industry  133 

the  power  of  the  State  be  invoked  to  prevent  him 
from  making  the  attempt  to  support  himself  mak- 
ing shoes  by  hand?  Not  at  all.  To  answer  the 
question  affirmatively  would  be  to  declare  the  So- 
cialist State  synonymous  with  industrial  servitude 
of  the  worst  kind.  If  Citizen  Jones  can  find  other 
citizens  who  are  willing  to  purchase  his  handmade 
shoes  there  Is  no  reason  why  he  should  not  make 
them,  provided  that  the  conditions  under  which  he 
makes  them  do  not  imperil  his  health  or  well-being 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  menace  that  interest  which 
the  State  has  in  the  efficiency  and  welfare  of  all  its 
citizens. 

The  State  may  very  properly  determine  the 
conditions  under  which  this  individual  production 
of  shoes  by  hand  labor  may  be  conducted.  It  may 
prescribe  the  sanitary  and  other  qualifications  of 
the  place  in  which  such  work  is  done.  It  may 
limit  the  hours  of  labor.  It  may  even  prescribe 
both  the  quality  and  the  prices  of  the  shoes.  The 
fear  that  the  Socialist  State  must  depend  upon  an 
immense  bureaucracy  arises  from  the  mistaken  no- 
tion that  Socialism  involves  the  forcible  suppres- 
sion of  all  voluntary  Industrial  enterprise  and  the 
coercion  of  every  citizen  Into  the  performance  of 
whatever  task  may  be  assigned  to  him.  In  point 
of  fact,  neither  of  these  things  is  essential  to  the 
attainment  of  the  Socialist  ideal. 

If  Citizen  Jones  finds  other  citizens  engaged, 


134  Applied  Socialism 

like  himself,  in  making  shoes  for  particularly  fas- 
tidious people  who  do  not  like  the  shoes  made  in 
the  collectively  owned  and  operated  factory,  there 
Is  nothing  In  the  philosophy  or  programme  of  So- 
cialism to  justify  the  assumption  that  their  co- 
operation would  be  forbidden.  Given  a  body  of 
producers  working  together  as  equal  partners, 
regulated  by  the  State,  the  main  evil  of  capitalist 
industry,  the  exploitation  of  the  producer  through 
the  operation  of  the  wages  system,  ceases  to  exist. 
There  is  nothing  anti-social  In  such  an  arrange- 
ment. Socialization  of  Industry  Includes  such 
voluntary  cooperation  just  as  truly  as  It  Includes 
production  and  distribution  under  the  auspices  of 
the  State. 

Many  of  the  critics  of  Socialism  imagine  that 
a  great  conflict  will  necessarily  develop  from  this 
condition,  a  conflict  between  the  State  as  the  prin- 
cipal producer  and  distributor  of  goods  and  bodies 
of  citizens  independently  engaged  in  similar  pro- 
duction and  distribution,  therefore  rivals  of  the 
State  of  which  they  are  citizens.  Such  fears  and 
forebodings  are  not  best  met  by  suggesting  and 
describing  elaborately  devised  safeguards  to  pro- 
tect the  unity  of  the  Socialist  State,  but  by  Insisting 
upon  the  mutuality  of  Socialism  and  democracy. 
There  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  State  as  an 
instrument  of  class  rule  and  the  State  as  the  ad- 
ministrative instrument  of  all  the  people. 


Property  and  Industry  135 

So  long  as  the  State  Is  the  instrument  of  a  class 
whose  whole  being  depends  upon  the  successful 
exploitation  of  a  subject  and  dependent  class,  it 
will  naturally  use  its  power  to  advance  the  in- 
terests of  the  class  represented  by  it,  whose  crea- 
ture it  is,  and  to  oppress  the  weaker,  dependent 
class.  But  when  the  State  ceases  to  be  merely  an 
instrument  in  the  hands  of  a  privileged  class,  and 
becomes  the  administrative  instrument  of  all  the 
people,  its  oppressive  character  ceases  with  its  class 
character. 

In  other  words,  the  State,  under  Socialism, 
could  impose  no  condition  for  the  regulation  of 
voluntary  industrial  enterprise  of  which  the  ma- 
jority of  the  people  did  not  approve.  Whatever 
abuses  might  develop  would  be  easily  remediable, 
the  State  being  ever  responsive  to  the  interests 
and  will  of  the  people. 

We  may  suppose  a  crisis  to  have  developed  in 
the  Socialist  regime  in  the  following  manner :  A 
certain  municipality  establishes  big  collectively 
owned  factories  for  the  manufacture  of  furniture. 
After  a  while,  a  number  of  the  best  artisans  em- 
ployed by  the  municipality  in  its  furniture  factories 
decide  to  leave  the  municipal  service  and  start  a 
cooperative  factory  for  the  manufacture  of  spe- 
cially designed  furniture.  Very  soon,  the  munici- 
pal enterprise  begins  to  suffer  from  the  competition 


136  Applied  Socialism 

of  the  cooperative  enterprise.     People  prefer  Its 
product  to  that  of  the  municipal  factory. 

What  may  we  expect  the  outcome  of  this  con- 
dition to  be?  Will  the  State  use  its  power  to 
force  its  competitor  to  the  wall?  The  answer  is 
that  the  people  as  a  whole  must  decide,  and  that 
is  a  sure  guarantee  that  voluntary  enterprise  con- 
ducive to  the  general  welfare  of  society  will  not 
be  suppressed  by  the  State  in  order  to  maintain  an 
inefficient  and  uneconomical  form  of  collective  en- 
terprise through  State  channels.  Unless  the  mu- 
nicipal factory  can  turn  out  a  product  equally  as 
satisfactory  In  quality,  style  and  price  as  that  turned 
out  by  the  voluntary  cooperative  concern  It  will  not 
prosper;  the  superiority  of  the  products  of  the 
voluntary  cooperative  concern  will  assure  Its  suc- 
cess. Under  these  conditions  municipally  owned 
and  operated  factories  avIU  not  hold  their  own, 
and  the  trend  of  industrial  development  will  be  in 
the  direction  of  voluntary  cooperation. 

If  the  workers  can  make  more  in  less  time  as 
employes  of  the  State  or  municipality  than  they 
can  make  In  a  longer  time  working  as  Individuals, 
they  will  not  choose  to  work  as  individuals,  except 
in  rare  cases.  If  the  people  find  that  voluntary 
industrial  enterprise  produces  better  results  than 
the  collective  industrial  enterprise  which  takes  the 
form  of  production  and  distribution  by  the  State 


Property  and  Industry  137 

or  municipality,  they  will,  naturally,  foster  —  and 
if  need  be  defend  —  voluntary  enterprise. 

By  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  State  and  its  sub- 
divisions would  inevitably  employ  a  vast  number  of 
citizens  in  carrying  on  the  productive  and  distribu- 
tive functions  entrusted  to  them,  and  thus  become 
organizers  of  a  tremendous  body  of  labor,  they 
would  automatically  set  the  standards  which  volun- 
tary industrial  enterprise  must  necessarily  observe. 
Thus,  in  the  last  analysis,  it  is  the  State  as  pro- 
ducer which  sets  the  standards  for,  and  regulates, 
private  industrial  enterprise,  rather  than  the  State 
as  a  coercive  agent. 


VI 

PERSONAL   LIBERTY   IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE 

ONE  of  the  most  common  and  effective 
arguments  against  Socialism  rests  upon 
the  fear  that  it  must  necessarily  lead  to 
a  great  increase  in  the  coercive  functions  of  the 
State,  and  a  corresponding  decrease  in  personal 
liberty.  Many  able  and  earnest  opponents  of  the 
Socialist  movement  have  based  their  main  attacks 
upon  the  assumption  that  Socialism  involves  the 
suppression  of  all  individual  initiative;  that  the  life 
of  the  individual  under  Socialism  must  be  governed 
by  an  immense  bureaucracy. 

The  late  Professor  Goldwin  Smith,  for  example, 
believed  that  the  Socialist  State  would  have  to  deny 
"freedom  and  personal  choice  of  calling";  that 
the  government  would  have  to  "  pick  out  invent- 
ors, scientific  discoverers,  philosophers,  men  of  let- 
ters, artists,  set  them  to  work  and  assign  them 
their  rewards."  ^  This  view  closely  resembles  the 
famous  caricature  of  the  Socialist  State  by  Eugen 

^  Labor  and  Capital,  p.  27. 

138 


Personal  Liberty  139 

Richter/  and  that  form  of  State  despotism  which 
Herbert  Spencer  denounced.^ 

One  thing  is  common  to  all  those  critics  who 
offer  this  objection  to  Socialism;  they  all  regard  the 
total  suppression  of  private  property  and  industry 
as  an  essential  condition  of  Socialism.  Overlook- 
ing and  ignoring  the  central  principle  of  Socialism, 
the  class  struggle,  they  fail  utterly  to  comprehend 
that  a  vast  amount  of  private  property  and  indus- 
trial enterprise  is  quite  compatible  with  the  Social- 
ist ideal.  As  we  have  seen,  the  objective  of  the 
Socialist  movement  Is  not  so  much  the  establish- 
ment of  a  form  of  economic  organization  as  the 
realization  of  certain  social  relations,  a  state  of 
equal  opportunity  in  which  no  individual  will  have, 
the  power  to  exploit  the  labor  and  needs  of  other 
individuals. 

It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  the  attainment 
of  this  end  would  Involve  the  slightest  extension  of 
the  powers  of  government  In  the  direction  of  bu- 
reaucracy. It  Is  important  that  we  bear  In  mind 
the  fact  that  the  maintenance  of  the  existing  capi- 
talist system  Involves  a  vast  amount  of  restrictive 
legislation  and  Interference  with  the  Individual. 
One  of  the  most  significant  facts  in  the  whole  range 
of  modern  social  and  political  phenomena  Is  the 
increasing   tendency   of   all   the   great  nations  of 

1  Sozialdemokratische  Zukunftsbilder. 

2  The  Coming  Slavery. 


140  Applied  Socialism 

the  world  toward  bureaucracy  in  their  government. 
This  is  equally  true  in  England  with  Free  Trade 
and  in  the  United  States  with  Protection;  in  Ger- 
many under  monarchical  government  and  in 
France  under  republican  government.  It  Is  as  true 
under  the  Southern  Cross  as  under  the  Great 
Dipper.  For  the  restraint  of  capitalist  enterprise, 
to  protect  society  against  the  abuses  of  capitalism, 
the  leading  nations  of  the  world  have  been  com- 
pelled to  develop  bureaucratic  governments. 
Trusts  and  monopclies  have  developed  such  a 
menacing  power  that  in  self-proteCtion  the  State 
has  been  obliged  to  undertake  an  enormous  amount 
of  inspection  and  regulation.  The  evils  insepara- 
ble from  the  development  of  capitalism  are  con- 
tinually forcing  the  State  to  enact  laws  restrictive 
of  personal  liberty,  to  enforce  which  armies  of 
prying  officials  are  necessary.  Regulation  of  cap- 
italist enterprise  in  the  great  public  services,  such 
as  railroads  and  light  and  power  plants.  Involves 
an  astonishing  amount  of  legislative  and  adminis- 
trative interference  with  the  individual  by  the  State, 
much  of  It  Irritating,  humiliating  and  oppressive. 
Bureaucratic  government  Is  not  an  evil  resting  In 
the  lap  of  the'  future,  waiting  for  Socialism  to  in- 
troduce it  to  the  world.     It  Is  a  present  evil. 

When  it  is  suggested  that  the  railroads  ought  to 
be  socialized,   publicly  owned  and  operated   for 


Personal  Liberty  141 

the  common  good,  it  is  ridiculous  to  object  that 
such  a  step  would  be  in  the  direction  of  bureau- 
cracy. In  New  Zealand  the  railroads  have  been 
socialized.  They  are  owned  and  operated  by  the 
State.  In  the  United  States  they  are  owned  and 
operated  by  corporations  for  profit.  Do  we  find, 
then,  that  the  management  of  the  railroads  in  New 
Zealand  involves  a  larger  amount  of  government 
interference  with  the  individual  than  is  experi- 
enced in  the  United  States  where  capitalist  owner- 
ship obtains?  On  the  contrary.  It  is  in  the 
United  States  that  we  find  the  government  becom- 
ing more  and  more  bureaucratic  so  far  as  its  rela- 
tion to  the  railroads  is  concerned.  To  "  regulate  " 
the  railroad  service,  to  overcome  the  natural  tend- 
ency of  the  owners  of  the  railroads  to  take  advan- 
tage of  their  position  and  the  increasing  depend- 
ence of  the  public.  It  has  been  found  necessary  to 
enact  an  immense  body  of  legislation  and  to  main- 
tain a  formidable  army  of  officials  to  enforce  that 
legislation.  "  Liberty  requires  new  definitions," 
says  Carlyle  somewhere.  It  Is  quite  remarkable 
that  not  one  of  the  numerous  writers  who  have 
written  about  liberty  has  satisfactorily  defined  It. 
Cicero,  for  example,  declared  that  "  the  essence  of 
liberty  is  to  live  just  as  you  choose."  ^  This  fairly 
expresses  a  popular  conception  of  liberty,  perhaps, 

^De  officiis,  Book  I,  Ch.  XX. 


142  Applied  Socialism 

but  it  Is  of  little  value  as  a  definition.  In  society 
there  can  be  no  right  of  the  Individual  to  live  just 
as  he  chooses,  at  least,  not  until  each  individual 
will  becomes  synonymous  with  the  collective  will, 
In  which  case  there  can  be  no  choice,  for  choice 
Implies  differences  of  will  and  desire.  And  even 
If  It  were  possible  for  the  individual  to  live  accord- 
ing to  his  choice,  absolutely  unrestrained  by  the 
contrary  choices  and  interests  of  other  Individuals, 
there  would  not  be  absolute  freedom  unless  there 
was  freedom  of  the  will.  Unless  the  volitions  of 
the  individual  were  self-caused,  to  use  John  Stuart 
Mill's  expression,  and  he  had  control  of  all  the 
circumstances  which  determined  his  choice,  the  in- 
dividual would  still  lack  absolute  liberty. 

But  there  is  no  such  a  thing  as  freedom  of  the 
will,  either  for  mankind  or  the  lower  animals.^ 
Herbert  Spencer  states  the  matter  very  clearly  in 
a  well-known  passage :  "  Psychical  changes  either 
conform  to  law  or  they  do  not.  If  they  do  not 
conform  to  law,  no  science  of  psychology  Is  possi- 
ble. If  they  do  conform  to  law,  there  cannot  be 
any  such  thing  as  free  will."  ^  The  Duke  of  Ar- 
gyll makes  a  very  similar  observation  and  con- 
cludes: "There  is  nothing  existing  In  the  world 
which  Is  absolutely  alone  —  entirely  free  from  in- 
separable relation  to  some  other  thing  or  things. 

1  E.  Haeckel,  History  of  Creation,  Vol.  I,  p.  237. 

2  Spencer,  Principles  of  Psychology,  Pg.  IV,  Section  20. 


Personal  Liberty  I43 

Freedom,  therefore,  is  only  intelligible  as  meaning 
the  being  free  from  some  kind  of  restraint."  ^ 

The  statement  that  freedom  "  is  only  intelligible 
as  meaning  the  being  free  from  some  kind  of  re- 
straint "  deserves  close  scrutiny.  Taken  in  con- 
junction with  its  context,  it  means  that  there  cannot 
be  a  universal,  absolute  liberty,  since  no  individual 
can  ever  be  wholly  free  from  all  forms  of  restraint. 
If  the  passage  be  changed  to  read  that  "  freedom  " 
is  only  intelligible  as  meaning  the  being  free  from 
all  forms  of  restraint,  it  at  once  becomes  a  worth- 
less abstraction,  like  Cicero's  definition.  It  is 
fairly  obvious  that  I  may  be  politically  free  to  act 
according  to  a  certain  desire  or  choice  but  re- 
strained by  economic  disabilities  or  by  custom. 

John  Stuart  Mill  wrote  a  book  on  Liberty  with- 
out defining  it.  The  nearest  he  came  to  a  formu- 
lation of  a  definition  was  to  postulate  the  principle 
that  "  the  sole  end  for  which  mankind  are  war- 
ranted, individually  or  collectively,  in  interfering 
with  the  liberty  of  action  of  any  of  their  number, 
is  self-protection.  That  the  only  purpose  for 
which  power  can  be  rightfully  exercised  over  any 
member  of  a  civilized  community,  against  his  will, 
is  to  prevent  harm  to  others."  '^  Herbert  Spencer 
accepts  this  principle  as  a  working  definition. 
"  Each  man  has  freedom  to  do  all  that  which  he 

1  Argyll,  Reign  of  Law,  Ch.  VI. 

2  On  Liberty,  Ch.  I. 


144  Applied  Socialism 

wills,  provided  he  infringes  not  the  equal  freedom 
of  any  other  man."  ^  According  to  both  philoso- 
phers, liberty  is  a  social  concept.  It  is  relative, 
not  absolute.  There  are  very  few  important  ac- 
tions in  which  any  individual  can  indulge  which  are 
not  the  concern  of  others  than  himself.  No  con- 
siderable class  of  acts  can  be  named  which  are  not 
in  some  degree  social  acts,  which  the  individual 
can  at  all  times  perform  without  affecting  in  any 
manner  the  interests  of  others  than  himself.  In- 
terdependence is  inseparable  from  social  organiza- 
tion. 

Thomas  Hill  Green  defines  liberty  as  the  posi- 
tive power  or  capacity  which  each  man  exercises 
or  holds  through  the  help  or  security  given  him  by 
his  fellowmen,  and  which  he  in  turns  helps  to  se- 
cure for  them.2  Subjectively  considered,  this  is 
a  good  definition.  Objectively  considered,  it  is  as 
far  from  being  satisfactory  as  any.  The  sum  of 
the  positive  powers  which  the  individual  enjoys 
through  the  reciprocal  activity  which  Green  de- 
scribes may  be,  and  often  is,  very  far  from  amount- 
ing to  anything  worthy  of  being  called  liberty. 

It  is,  perhaps,  impossible  to  formulate  a  defi- 
nition of  liberty  which  will  be  wholly  free  from 
objection.     We  may,  however,  postulate  two  prin- 

1  Social  Statics,  Ch.  IX. 

^  Essay  on  Liberal  Legislation  and  Freedom  of  Contract. 


Personal  Liberty  145 

ciples  which  are  essential  to  a  rational  conception 
of  liberty. 

The  first  of  these  principles  is  that  liberty  is  not 
an  intelligible  term  except  as  it  relates  to  some  par- 
ticular phase  or  phases  of  life.  We  may  intelli- 
gently speak  of  political  liberty,  of  religious  lib- 
erty, of  economic  liberty,  and  so  on.  Each  of 
these  terms  Implies  the  absence  of  restraint  of  a 
certain  kind  from  a  particular  phase  of  life.  In 
considering  the  advisability  of  performing  a  cer- 
tain action  a  man  may  take  Into  account  that  he  is 
politically  free  either  to  do  It  or  to  leave  It  undone. 
The  State  will  neither  punish  him  nor  reward  him 
In  either  case.  There  Is,  therefore,  no  political 
pressure  or  restraint.  But  there  are  other  forms 
of  compulsion  and  restraint,  fear  of  social  ostra- 
cism or  ridicule,  belief  in  a  future  life  and  rewards 
and  punishments  for  the  deeds  committed  in  this 
life,  are  sufficient  examples.  We  simply  cannot 
conceive  of  the  whole  of  life  being  free  from  all 
forms  of  compulsion  or  restraint.  Even  If  the 
compelling  or  restraining  forces  be  moral  ones,  our 
wills  and  desires,  they  are  none  the  less  real  and 
none  the  less  effective.  And  we  know  that  we  are 
not  free  In  our  wills  and  desires,  but  that  these 
are  the  resultants  of  factors  largely  beyond  our 
knowledge  and  control. 

The  second  principle  Is  that  liberty,  even  thus 
narrowed  to  a  single  phase  of  life  is  a  relative  term. 


146  Applied  Socialism 

The  closet  philosophers  of  Anarchism  have  set  up 
an  abstract  Ideal  of  absolute  liberty,  but  It  has  no 
place  In  the  world  of  reality.  We  cannot  escape 
the  limitations  of  social  Interdependence.  Mine 
Is  always  bounded  by  Thine  In  society.  Absolute 
freedom  for  any  Individual  in  society,  unrestricted 
liberty  to  do  as  he  pleased  regardless  of  the  Inter- 
ests and  wishes  of  other  Individuals,  would  neces- 
sarily Involve  despotism.  We  are  reminded  of 
Plato's  wise  saying  that  "  From  excessive  liberty 
tyranny  springs  as  certainly  as  a  tree  from  its 
roots." 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  citizens  of  a  community 
agree  to  protect  themselves  against  outbreaks  of 
disease  by  an  elaborate  system  of  public  drainage. 
But  one  citizen  objects  to  having  his  property 
drained.  He  regards  the  drainage  scheme  as  an 
Invasion  of  his  "  liberty,"  and  In  the  name  of  that 
"  liberty  "  demands  that  his  property  be  left  un- 
drained.  If  the  citizens,  while  considering  that  to 
omit  the  property  of  the  objecting  individual  will 
expose  the  entire  community  to  danger,  either 
abandon  or  modify  their  scheme  out  of  solicitude 
for  the  liberty  of  that  Individual,  Is  It  not  clear 
that  the  Individual  is  thus  made  a  sort  of  tyrant? 
To  make  the  liberty  of  the  one  Individual  absolute 
all  the  other  Individuals  have  sacrificed  their  own. 

The  Irreconcilable  conflict  between  Anarchism 
and  Socialism   as   systems   of  philosophy   and   as 


Personal  Liberty  147 

movements  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  former 
considers  society  as  nothing  more  than  an  aggrega- 
tion of  individuals,  while  the  latter  regards  it  as  a 
highly  organized  body  whose  members  are  inter- 
dependent. To  the  Anarchist  every  attempt  of 
society  to  assert  its  supremacy  over  the  individual 
is  essentially  tyrannical,  and,  per  contra,  every  at- 
tempt of  the  individual  to  resist  that  social  su- 
premacy and  control  is  a  blow  struck  for  individual 
liberty.  To  the  Socialist,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
greatest  advancements  of  personal  liberty  appear 
to  be  those  which  have  resulted  from  the  assertion 
of  social  interests  over  Individual  interests.  Thus, 
while  the  Anarchist  contends  that  the  greatest  so- 
cial good  must  result  from  the  complete  freedom 
and  independence  of  the  individual,  the  Socialist 
contends  that  the  fullest  freedom  of  the  individual 
must  result  from  the  recognition  of  the  supremacy 
of  society  over  the  individual,  of  social  interests 
over  private  Interests. 

On  the  side  of  the  Socialist  the  testimony  of 
history  is  certain  and  conclusive.  It  is  that  po- 
litical and  religious  liberty  has  progressed  rapidly 
where  social  supremacy  has  been  most  firmly  estab- 
lished. No  one  can  study  the  history  of  the  con- 
flict between  the  feudal  barons  and  the  Free  Cities 
and  fail  to  recognize  in  the  victory  of  the  latter  an 
immense  advance  of  individual  liberty.  It  would 
be  easy  to  construct  a  chart  of  human  progress 


148  Applied  Socialism 

showing  that  the  boundaries  of  personal  freedom 
have  been  broadened  or  narrowed  according  to  the 
increase  or  decrease  of  social  supremacy.  All 
through  civilization  we  find  that  social  supremacy 
has  added  to  the  sum  of  individual  liberties.  It 
has  forced  initiative  upon  higher  planes  by  forbid- 
ding initiative  upon  lower  ones. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  Anarchists  them- 
selves invariably  abandon  that  fundamental  tenet 
of  their  faith,  absolute  liberty,  when  they  attempt 
to  state  the  principles  of  that  faith  constructively. 
Thus,  Kropotkin,  in  his  very  interesting  study,  La 
Conquete  du  pain,  considers  what  would  happen  in 
the  ideal  Anarchist  society  which  he  depicts  should 
an  individual  persist  in  conduct  which  the  great 
body  of  citizens  regarded  as  inimical  to  the  com- 
mon welfare.  Quite  boldly  Kropotkin  cuts  the 
Gordian  knot  and  tells  us  that  the  individual  who 
refused  to  observe  the  will  of  his  fellows  would  be 
forcibly  expelled  from  the  community.*  Banish- 
ment has  always  been  regarded  as  a  rather  drastic 
form  of  punishment.  The  important  point,  how- 
ever, is  that  even  Kropotkin  has  to  admit  that  lib- 
erty is  based  upon  social  consent,  not  upon  individ- 
ual desire.  The  most  elementary  study  of  the 
conditions  of  social  existence  will  suffice  to  show 
the  fallacy  upon  which  the  idea  of  absolute  per- 
sonal liberty  is  based.     And  this  idea  In  turn  is  the 

^  P.  Kropotkin,  La  Conquete  du  pain,  p.  202. 


Personal  Liberty  149 

basis  of  the  Anarchist  contention  that  freedom  and 
the  mere  absence  of  government  are  synonymous. 

Of  all  the  foolish  notions  that  ever  obsessed  the 
minds  of  men  surely  none  has  ever  been  more  fool- 
ish than  the  notion  that  the  mere  absence  of 
government  and  law  means  freedom.  So  far  from 
that  being  the  case,  there  is  often  freedom  only 
within  the  law,  and  the  absence  of  government 
means  tyranny.  An  English  Anarchist,  addressing 
a  bitterly  hostile  audience,  denounced  government 
and  law  as  being  essentially  tyrannical.  Again  and 
again  he  declared  that  "  Anarchists  are  opposed  to 
the  State  and  to  all  forms  of  government  because 
these  rest  upon  force."  Because  of  the  bitterness 
of  his  attack  upon  the  government  and  his  abuse 
of  the  reigning  sovereign,  the  crowd  was  enraged 
and  wanted  to  mob  him  and  prevent  him  from 
speaking.  But  the  police  stood  by  and  protected 
him  from  the  crowd.  The  law  said  that  he  had  a 
right  to  speak,  and  the  officers  of  the  law  were 
there  defending  him  and  insuring  his  right,  his 
freedom.  Yet  the  Anarchist  apparently  did  not 
recognize  the  grotesque  humor  of  his  situation. 

The  same  principle  is  illustrated  every  time  mob 
violence  prevents  the  exercise  of  legal  rights. 
During  the  agitation  in  England  over  the  Boer 
War  it  was  my  fortune  to  be  involved  in  the  propa- 
ganda which  aimed  at  first  to  prevent  war,  and, 
later  on,  to  put  an  end  to  it.     The  law  gave  to  all 


150  Applied  Socialism 

citizens  the  right  to  hold  meetings  for  the  purpose 
of  our  propaganda,  but  the  public  temper  was  such 
that  mobs  of  infuriated  —  and  often  inebriated  — 
"  patriots "  tried  to  destroy  that  right.  Fre- 
quently we  had  to  speak  under  police  protection. 
Thus  our  liberty  to  hold  meetings  was  made  possi- 
ble only  through  the  law  and  its  officers.  It  would 
be  easy  to  multiply  instances  in  which  the  law  stood 
for  liberty,  and  tyranny  took  the  form  of  opposi- 
tion to  the  law.  To  say,  then,  that  mere  absence 
of  law  is  synonymous  with  liberty,  or  that  law  is 
synonymous  with  tyranny,  is  folly  of  the  worst  type. 
The  majority  of  the  laws  upon  our  statute  books 
are  in  no  sense  oppressive  so  far  as  the  normal  in- 
dividual is  concerned.  Some  years  ago  I  had  an 
amusing  encounter  with  an  Anarchist  upon  this 
point.  I  was  lecturing  in  a  town  in  New  Jersey 
and  in  the  discussion  which  followed  the  lecture  an 
Anarchist  arose  and  made  the  customary  Anar- 
chistic declaration  that  all  law  is  oppressive.  It 
happened  that  the  public  mind  just  then  was  im- 
pressed by  a  crime  of  a  particularly  shocking  na- 
ture. Calling  the  Anarchist's  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  atrocious  deed  in  question  was  a  felony, 
that  the  law  forbade  such  deeds  and  imposed  long 
terms  of  imprisonment  upon  those  committing 
them,  I  asked  him  whether  he  had  ever  felt  that 
the  existence  of  that  law  upon  the  statute  books 
of  the  State  of  New  Jersey  oppressed  him,  or  in 


Personal  Liberty  1 51 

any  way  restricted  his  freedom.  Of  course,  the 
reply  was  that  he  had  not.  Similar  replies  were 
given  in  response  to  similar  questions  concerning 
a  dozen  or  more  laws  which  are  to  be  found  upon 
the  statute  books  of  every  civilized  state. 

Like  all  normal,  honest  citizens,  the  Anarchist 
had  gone  through  life  without  feeling  In  the  slight- 
est degree  oppressed  by  the  laws  enacted  against 
murder,  rape,  arson,  burglary,  bigamy,  robbery, 
and  so  on.  So  far  as  he  was  concerned,  these 
laws  were  non-existent.  In  no  sense  were  they 
oppressive  to  him ;  they  restricted  no  liberty  of  his. 
Only  that  man  could  logically  claim  that  he  was 
oppressed  by  them,  that  they  restricted  his  liberty, 
who  felt  a  desire  to  commit  one  or  more  of  the 
dangerous  anti-social  acts  In  question.  We  all  go 
through  life  without  ever  being  conscious  of  any 
oppression  from  numerous  laws. 

It  will  be  obvious  from  the  foregoing  that  an- 
tagonism to  the  law  and  government,  as  such,  Is 
not  a  part  of  the  Socialist  philosophy.  But  the 
essential  difference  between  Socialism  and  Anarch- 
Ism  Is  not  that  the  former  ideahzes  law  while  the 
latter  anathematizes  It.  Anarchism  and  Socialism 
are  not  polar  opposltes  because  the  former  would 
abolish  all  law  while  the  latter  would  surround 
all  life  with  legal  enactments.  Not  every  exten- 
sion of  the  power  of  the  State  over  the  life  of  the 
Individual  Is  a  step  toward  Socialism  as  is  some- 


1^2  Applied  Socialism 

times  suggested  by  superficial  thinkers.  The 
fundamental  difference  between  the  two  schools  of 
thought  lies  in  the  fact  that  while  the  Anarchist 
seeks  absolute  individual  liberty  the  Socialist  holds 
that  to  be  a  mere  abstraction  and  strives  after  the 
maximum  of  individual  liberty  attainable,  which 
he  believes  can  only  result  from  the  establishment 
of  true  democracy  —  the  supremacy  of  social  in- 
terests over  private  interests.  Even  if  society 
should  progress  to  a  state  of  civilization  in  which 
laws  backed  by  the  organized  force  of  government 
became  unnecessary,  it  would  be  none  the  less  a 
Socialist  society,  so  long  as  it  was  regulated  by  the 
social  will,  however  informally  these  might  be  ex- 
pressed. 

In  a  true  democracy  laws  are  simply  the  crystal- 
lizations of  the  will  of  a  preponderating  majority 
of  the  citizens.  First  comes  the  desire,  a  product 
of  experience,  and  then  comes  the  enactment  of 
the  desire  into  law.  Sometimes  social  desires, 
even  when  not  enacted  into  laws,  crystallize  into 
sentiments  so  strong  as  to  have  all  the  force 
of  laws.  So  much  is  this  so  that  we  speak  of 
"  unwritten  laws."  When  dueling  was  the  fash- 
ion public  sentiment  had  crystallized  into  unwrit- 
ten laws  so  strong  that  a  man  who  was  insulted 
was  practically  compelled  to  challenge  the  aggres- 
sor to  mortal  combat.  Tf  he  failed  to  do  this,  he 
was  subject  to  much  worse  punishment  than  would 


Personal  Liberty  153 

in  all  probability  have  been  imposed  had  the  law 
been  one  of  legal  force,  and  this  despite  the  fact 
that  he  had  a  clear  legal  right  to  refuse  to  fight 
a  duel. 

Here,  again,  we  can  see  the  impossibility  of  the 
Anarchist  ideal  of  absolute  liberty.  Even  in  the 
Anarchist  Utopia  there  would  be  public  sentiment, 
and  that,  in  the  absence  of  some  legal  forms  for 
its  expression,  would  crystallize  itself  into  such 
"  unwritten  laws  "  as  have  existed  all  through  the 
ages.  Individual  liberty  of  action  might,  there- 
fore, be  restricted  quite  as  much  as  it  is  under 
present  conditions  with  legal  institutions.  In  the 
light  of  all  human  experience  it  may  be  safely  pre- 
dicted that  in  such  a  Utopia  violations  of  the  un- 
written laws  would  often  be  punished  with  the  fe- 
rocity and  mad  revenge  which  result  from  excess 
of  passion  and  inflamed  public  tempers.  Every 
lynching  is  an  illustration  of  what  "  justice  with- 
out the  law  "  almost  inevitably  involves.  Kropot- 
kin  seems  to  rely  upon  just  this  sort  of  terrorism  to 
maintain  his  anarchlal  Utopia,  for  he  tells  us  that 
*'  customary  law,"  as  jurists  say,*  "  will  be  sufficient 
to  maintain  a  good  understanding,"  and  conformity 
will  be  adequately  assured  by  necessity,^  by  fear  of 
expulsion,^  and,  if  necessary,  by  the  intervention  of 

^Paroles  d'un  revolte,  p.  221. 

2  Anarchist  Communism,  p.  24. 

3  La  Conquete  du  pain,  p.  202. 


154  Applied  Socialism 

the  individual  citizen,^  or  of  the  masses.^  Lynch 
law  does  not  make  an  attractive  Utopia,  after  all. 

Many  persons  are  restrained  by  and  live  their 
lives  in  terror  of  custom,  who  never  felt  in  the 
slightest  degree  oppressed  by  the  State.  Many 
things  which  are  not  wrong,  but  have  the  sanctions 
of  morality  and  reason,  are  forbidden  by  custom. 
The  opposition  to  rational  dress  for  women  is  but 
one  illustration  of  many  which  might  be  cited. 
The  attitude  of  society  upon  the  relations  of  the 
sexes,  compelling  all  the  open  and  franlc  advances 
to  come  from  the  male.  Illustrate  the  same  point. 
Custom  Is  cruelly  repressive  very  often  and  many 
of  the  victims  of  its  tyranny  have  had  to  seek  the 
protection  of  the  law.  Yet,  despite  the  plain  les- 
sons of  human  experience,  the  Anarchists  continue 
to  indulge  in  their  quixotic  attacks  upon  law  as  the 
embodiment  of  all  oppression,  and  rely  wholly 
upon  "  unwritten  laws  "  and  customs  to  secure  per- 
sonal freedom ! 

There  Is  no  promise  of  absolute  personal  liberty 
in  the  Socialist  State.  In  order  to  Insure  the 
greatest  liberty  to  the  greatest  number  it  may  be 
necessary  to  restrain  the  actions  of  some  indi- 
viduals, to  restrict  their  liberties,  or  even  to  take 
them    away    altogether.     Thus,    in    the    Socialist 

^  Revolutionary  Studies,  p.  30. 

'Paroles   d'un   revolte,   pp.    no,    134,    135;    La    Conquete    du 
pain,  p.  109. 


Personal  Liberty  155 

State  "  eternal  vigilance  "  will  still  continue  to  be 
the  only  guarantee  of  liberty.  Man  is  a  creature 
of  dual  nature,  controlled  by  dual  forces.  On  the 
one  hand,  he  is  an  egoist,  ever  striving  for  indi- 
vidual expansion.  On  the  other  hand,  he  is  a 
gregarious  animal,  ever  seeking  the  companionship 
of  his  fellows.  Life  is  an  oscillation  between  these 
two  motives.  On  the  one  hand  there  is  the 
struggle  for  individual  expression,  on  the  other 
hand  the  sense  of  dependence  and  mutuality.  Re- 
lying upon  the  lesson  of  experience,  the  test  of 
reality,  the  Socialist  believes  that,  upon  the  whole, 
the  largest  individual  liberty  is  possible  for  all 
where  the  social  will  is  predominant.  He  is  es- 
sentially a  pragmatist. 

In  those  countries  in  which  constitutional  gov- 
ernment exists  the  greatest  tyranny  is  not  political 
and  legal  in  its  origin,  but  economic.  That  fact 
becomes  the  more  evident  the  nearer  we  approach 
democracy.  In  the  United  States  to-day  we  have, 
relatively  speaking,  political  freedom,  but  we  are 
held  in  the  grip  of  economic  tyranny.  Herbert 
Spencer,  individualist  that  he  was,  recognized  this 
great  fact.  With  all  his  hatred  of  legislation 
restrictive  of  individual  liberty,  he  could  not  ignore 
the  fact  that  modern  tyranny  is  economic  in  its  es- 
sence. He  frankly  admitted  that  the  so-called 
liberty  of  the  laborer  "  amounts  In  practice  to  lit- 
tle more  than  the  ability  to  exchange  one  slavery 


156  Applied  Socialism 

for  another,"  and,  further,  that  "  the  coercion  of 
circumstances  often  bears  more  hardly  on  him  than 
the  coercion  of  a  master  does  on  one  in  bondage."  ^ 
Spencer  realized  that  this  condition  could  only 
be  remedied  through  control  of  the  economic 
factors  of  the  common  body,  and  he  hoped  for 
amelioration  through  cooperation.  Thus  he  ap- 
proached very  closely  to  the  Socialist  position,  his 
hostility  to  the  State  as  the  regulative  agent  consti- 
tuting almost  the  only  barrier  to  his  acceptance  of 
the  Socialist  remedy.  Perhaps  it  was  his  fear  of 
the  regulative  power  of  the  State,  which  he  re- 
garded as  belonging  to  the  regime  of  Militarism 
that  blinded  him  to  the  significance  of  the  fact  that 
modern  progress  toward  social  betterment  has  been 
characterized  by  a  coincident  Increase  of  control 
over  the  economic  forces  of  life  and  a  decrease  of 
sumptuary  legislation.  With  the  growth  of 
democracy  laws  regulating  private  expenditures 
have  almost  wholly  disappeared.^  The  interfer- 
ence of  the  State  with  private  expenditures  is  not 
long  tolerated  by  the  masses  when  they  have  the 
power  to  change  the  laws.  On  the  other  hand, 
they  have  everywhere  used  that  power  to  enact 

1  Principles  of  Sociology,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  525. 

-Prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic  has  been  called  a  modified 
form  of  sumptuary  legislation  but  it  is  hardly  that.  It  is  more 
nearly  analogous  to  legislation  regulating  the  sale  of  poisons 
and   dangerous  weapons  than   to  the  ancient  sumptuary   laws. 


Personal  Liberty  157 

laws  bringing  the  economic  conditions  of  life,  such 
as  wages,  hours  of  labor,  sanitation  of  workshops, 
insurance  against  accidents,  and  the  like,  under 
social  control  and  laws  regulating  monopolies  be- 
long to  the  same  class. 

Now,  it  is  quite  apparent  that  so  long  as  these 
matters  are  the  subject  of  class  conflict  so  long 
must  all  such  legislation  involve  a  vast  amount  of 
interference  with  the  individual  by  the  State.  If 
the  railroads,  for  example,  were  owned  and  con- 
trolled by  the  State,  in  a  democracy  at  least,  an  ef- 
fective majority  of  the  citizens  would  be  able  to 
say  how  they  should  be  operated.  It  would  be 
relatively  a  simple  matter.  The  people,  that  is 
the  State,  would  be  at  once  the  owners  of  the  rail- 
roads and  the  makers  of  the  laws  regulating  them. 
But  so  long  as  the  railroads  are  owned  by  a  class 
within  the  State,  every  law  enacted  by  the  State 
which  the  owners  regard  as  hostile  to  their  special 
class  interests  will  be  resisted  and  evaded  with  all 
the  energy  and  ingenuity  they  can  command.  To 
cope  with  this  resistance  and  evasion  the  State  must 
organize  a  costly  system  of  espionage,  inspection 
and  punishments. 

It  is  in  this  manner  that  modern  governments 
are  being  forced  on  in  the  direction  of  bureaucracy. 
Laws  passed  against  child  labor,  the  employment 
of  women  and  girls  at  night,  restraint  of  trade, 
and  other  evils  are  systematically  evaded  and  vio- 


158  Applied  Socialism 

lated  to  such  an  extent  that  the  State  is  compelled 
to  keep  on  adding  to  the  great  army  of  those  whom 
it  employs  to  enforce  the  laws.  The  plain  les- 
son of  experience  is  that  the  socialization  of  the 
means  of  production  and  exchange,  through  social 
ownership  and  control,  will  render  a  great  deal  of 
such  legislation  unnecessary,  do  away  with  a  vast 
amount  of  government  interference  with  the  indi- 
vidual and  liberate  society  from  the  bureaucracy  in- 
separable from  capitalism  as  it  is  now  developed. 
If  it  is  asked  what  assurance  we  have  that  the 
Socialist  State  will  not  develop  new  forms  of  re- 
straint which  will  involve  the  servitude  of  the  indi- 
vidual, we  can  only  reply  that  our  one  assurance 
is  democracy.  Ruling  classes  have  always  devised 
legal  forms  to  bind  the  classes  over  which  they 
ruled,  but  no  class  voluntarily  forges  legal  chains 
to  bind  itself.  The  basis  of  the  new  social  order 
will  be  democracy,  the  right  of  all  adults  ^  to  an 
equal  share  in  the  determination  of  the  laws  which 
they  need  and  must  obey.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
in  such  a  democracy  laws  will  be  enacted  limiting 
the  essential  liberties  of  its  members.  After  all, 
that  is  the  most  assuring  answer  to  make  to  those 
who  fear  that  the  Socialist  State  will  enmesh  the 
life  of  the  individual  so  completely  as  to  deny  free- 
dom of  choice  of  occupation,  freedom  of  speech 

iThis  does  not  mean  that  the  Socialist  State  will  not  exclude 
lunatics,  idiots  and  criminals  from  the  franchise. 


Personal  Liberty  159 

and  movement,  freedom  of  religious  and  phil- 
osophical belief  and  association,  and  so  on. 

That  there  will  be  far  less  restrictive  legislation 
in  the  Socialist  State  than  we  are  now  accustomed 
to  is  a  reasonable  expectation.  One  of  the  most 
important  tasks  of  the  Socialist  State  In  Its  early 
stages  will  be  the  abolition  of  a  great  mass  of 
irritating  restraints  Imposed  by  the  necessities  of 
capitalist  development.  At  the  same  time  It  Is  al- 
most equally  certain  that,  from  time  to  time,  new 
restraints  will  be  devised.  Huxley,^  among  others, 
has  pointed  out  that  the  progress  of  civilization  Is 
generally  attended  by  the  repression  of  initiative 
on  lower  planes  and  a  resulting  development  of 
new  fields  for  initiative  upon  higher  planes. 
There  is  hardly  a  page  in  the  history  of  the  con- 
scious progress  of  the  race  which  does  not  bear 
witness  to  this  great  fact. 

For  many  years  English  chimneys  were  cleaned 
by  forcing  little  girls  and  boys  to  climb  through 
them.  Generally  the  children  were  defenseless 
paupers  who  had  been  taken  from  the  workhouses 
for  the  purpose.  They  were  frightfully  abused, 
and  It  was  not  at  all  an  unusual  thing  for  a  fire  to 
be  kindled  below  them  In  order  that  the  heat  and 
smoke  would  make  them  climb  more  rapidly  and 
prevent  them  from  lingering  over  their  task. 
When  the  State  abandoned  its  laissez  faire  attitude 

1  T.  H.  Huxley,  Evolution  and  Ethics. 


l6o  Applied  Socialism 

and  forbade  the  employment  of  children  for  such 
a  purpose,  it  restricted  "  liberty  "  of  a  brutal  sort 
but  it  enlarged  the  real  liberty  of  the  children. 
It  repressed  initiative  upon  a  low  and  brutal  plane, 
but  it  thereby  forced  the  development  of  initiative 
upon  a  higher  plane.  Chimneys  were  swept  by 
mechanical  devices,  and  a  new  sanctity  was  given 
to  the  rights  of  childhood. 

In  the  Socialist  State,  then,  liberty  will  continue 
to  grow  —  sometimes,  perhaps,  through  self-im- 
posed compulsions,  the  restraints  which  the  citizens 
of  a  true  democracy  may  place  upon  themselves  in 
order  that  they  may  become  more  truly  free  to 
live  noble  and  worthy  lives.  Just  as  the  fancied 
"  liberty  "  of  the  la'issez  faire  period  was  in  reality 
bondage,  and  just  as  the  compulsion  in  factory 
laws,  education  laws,  public  health  laws,  and  the 
like,  has  widened  the  boundaries  of  real  liberty, 
so  in  the  Socialist  State  enlightened  democracy  may 
attain  new  heights  of  freedom  through  restrictive 
legislation  which  binds  and  throttles  .  ignorance, 
disease,  vice  and  squalor.  To  adapt  a  pregnant 
phrase  from  Rousseau,  the  citizens  of  the  Socialist 
State  may  well  legally  force  each  other  to  be  free. 

There  can  be  no  promise  of  perfection,  no  as- 
surance that  no  error  will  ever  be  made  by  democ- 
racy under  Socialism  imposing  needless  and  profit- 
less hardship  upon  the  individual.  The  Future 
may  have  its  martyrs  lils:e  the  Present  and  the  Past* 


Personal  Liberty  i6i 

The  forerunners  of  progress  in  art  and  science  and 
philosophy  may  suffer  as  they  have  suffered  in  all 
ages,  but  they  will  be  far  safer  under  a  true 
democracy  than  under  any  class  government  the 
world  has  ever  known.  No  despotism  which  a 
democracy  controlling  the  means  of  production  and 
exchange  can  by  any  stretch  of  imagination  be 
considered  likely  to  impose  upon  itself,  can  equal 
the  despotism  of  circumstances  which  obtains  in 
present  society,  based  as  it  is  upon  the  class  owner- 
ship of  the  economic  requisites  of  existence. 

All  those  who  argue  that  the  Socialist  State 
must  be  despotic  in  its  nature  base  their  argu- 
ment upon  one  of  two  fundamental  errors,  or 
upon  both  of  them.  These  cardinal  errors  are: 
( I )  that  Socialism  involves  the  total  suppression 
of  private  property  and  individual  initiative;  (2) 
that  the  State  under  Socialism  will  be  a  power 
apart  from  the  mass  of  people  and  opposing  their 
interests  as  the  State  has  always  been  in  class-ruled 
society.  We  have  already  seen  that  Socialism 
does  not  involve  the  suppression  of  private 
property  and  individual  initiative  and  enterprise; 
that  the  principal  forms  of  property  and  industry 
to  be  socialized  are  those  which  now  involve  the 
dependence  of  the  many  on  the  few.  We  have 
seen,  too,  that  State  ownership  is  not  the  only  form 
of  Socialization  compatible  with  the  Socialist  ideal, 
that  voluntary  cooperation  may  well  have  an  im- 


1 62  Applied  Socialism 

portant  place  in  the  Socialist  State.  Finally,  we 
have  seen  that  the  political  basis  of  Socialist  so- 
ciety must  be  democratic;  that  the  State  will  have 
only  such  powers  as  the  majority  of  its  citizens 
freely  confer  upon  it. 

John  Stuart  Mill  declared  the  social  problem  of 
the  future  to  be  "  how  to  unite  the  greatest  indi- 
vidual liberty  of  action  with  a  common  ownership 
in  the  raw  materials  of  the  globe,  and  an  equal 
participation  of  all  in  the  benefits  of  combined 
labor."  ^  That  problem  cannot  be  solved  by 
"  benevolent  feudalism,"  or  the  "  moralization  of 
capital,"  but  only  by  a  free  and  unfettered  democ- 
racy. 

1  Autobiography,  Ch.  VII,  p.  232. 


VII 

LABOR   AND   ITS   REMUNERATION 


THE  fear  of  many  honest  and  sincere  op- 
ponents of  Socialism  that  in  the  Socialist 
regime  the  State  will  have  to  assign  each 
individual  his  or  her  task,  denying  the  element 
of  personal  choice,  has  provided  Socialists  with  a 
great  deal  of  amusement  which  has  relieved  the 
strain  and  hardship  of  their  propaganda.  There 
is  something  irresistibly  comic  in  the  thought  of  a 
State  official  attempting  to  select  poets  and  grave- 
diggers,  inventors  and  laborers  for  the  Socialist 
Commonwealth,  tagging  the  children  who  are  to 
be  its  Newtons,  Darwins,  Whitneys,  Edisons,  An- 
gelos,  Rodins,  Beethovens,  Wagners,  Raphaels, 
Millets,  Shakespeares  and  Shelleys,  and  so  on,  set- 
ting them  apart  for  special  development  and 
training.  One  wonders  what  would  happen  in  the 
event  that  a  lad  "  set  apart  "  as  a  farm  laborer 
should  prove  to  be  another  Burns.  Would  he  be 
punished,  for  some  kind  of  lese  majeste,  if  he 
dared  to  offer  to  the  world  his  apostrophes  to  the 

163 


164  Applied  Socialism 

mouse  or  to  the  daisy  turned  up  in  the  plow  fur- 
row? 

The  fundamental  natural  incentive  to  labor  is 
the  need  of  making  a  living.  In  a  society  whose 
social  organization  and  control  of  its  economic  re- 
sources made  it  impossible  for  any  person  to  exploit 
the  labor  and  need:  of  others,  and  thus  live  in 
idleness,  this  natural  incentive  would  compel  all  to 
labor  who  were  competent  to  do  so.  This,  rather 
than  any  law  of  the  State,  would  operate  to  pro- 
hibit parasitic  living  upon  the  labor  of  others. 
Where  this  natural  pressure  proved  ineffective  the 
State  would  act,  for  the  Socialist  State  must  guar- 
antee the  right  to  labor,  and,  as  a  corollary,  im- 
pose upon  every  competent  person  the  duty  of 
labor.  The  immature  child,  the  aged,  the  sick  and 
infirm  would  be  exempted  from  labor  as  incompe- 
tents. 

The  maintenance  of  these  incompetents  would, 
as  now,  be  a  charge  upon  society.  But  instead 
of  our  present  haphazard,  wasteful  and  cruel 
method  of  meeting  that  obligation  by  means  of 
"  charity,"  a  Socialist  State  would  frankly  recog- 
nize the  right  of  its  helpless  members  to  mainte- 
nance, and  would  meet  their  claims  out  of  the 
common  funds  by  carefully  organized  methods. 
We  see  within  the  present  social  order  the  begin- 
nings of  such  a  system.  Social  insurance  against 
sickness,  accident,  and  old  age,  developed  within 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         165 

the  capitalist  system  to  keep  it  going  by  mitigating 
some  of  its  most  dangerous  evils,  may  well  be  re- 
garded as  the  foundation  for  the  more  comprehen- 
sive system  of  social  insurance  of  the  Socialist 
State  —  in  principle  if  not  in  form. 

The  vast  army  of  unemployed  workers  who  to- 
day vainly  seek  work  while  those  employed  are 
overworked  would  find  employment,  with  the  re- 
sult that  there  would  be  leisure  for  all  and  over- 
work for  none  while  the  sum  of  production  would 
be  greatly  increased.  Then,  also,  an  enormous 
number  of  those  employed  to-day  in  occupations 
largely  dependent  upon  the  maintenance  of  capital- 
ism would  be  available  for  really  useful  labor. 
When  we  think  of  the  tremendous  amount  of  pro- 
ductive energy  to  be  gained  by  diverting  to  pro- 
duction the  non-productive  labor  of  to-day  we  get 
an  idea  of  the  wonderful  possibilities  of  the 
scientific  organization  of  industry. 

But  the  right  to  labor  and  the  duty  to  labor 
must  be  accompanied  by  the  freedom  of  the  indi- 
vidual to  choose  his  occupation.  As  far  as  pos- 
sible the  selection  of  occupation  must  be  personal 
and  free,  subject  to  the  laws  of  supply  and  demand, 
and  the  fitness  of  the  individual  for  the  task 
chosen.  No  free  democracy  would  tolerate  a  sys- 
tem which  gave  the  State  power  to  assign  each 
man  and  woman  his  or  her  task.  That  idea  of 
the  regimentation  of  labor  ignores  the  fundamental 


i66  Applied  Socialism 

principles  of  Socialism  and  assumes  a  despotic 
State  independent  of  the  will  and  interest  of  the 
people. 

When  we  affirm  that  the  choice  of  occupation 
Is  not  to  be  made  by  the  State,  but  by  the  indi- 
vidual, we  at  once  confront  one  of  those  difficulties 
which  have  served  the  opponents  of  Socialism  to 
such  good  purpose.  It  is  obvious  that  all  occupa- 
tions are  not  equally  desirable.  Some  occupa- 
tions are  pleasant  and  attractive,  while  others  are 
unpleasant  and  repellant.  There  are  some  occu- 
pations which  are  dangerous  and  disagreeable. 
Who  will  do  the  dirty  work  and  the  disagreeable 
work  under  Socialism  ? 

Let  us  briefly  consider  disagreeable  and  danger- 
ous work  as  a  distinct  and  separate  category,  leav- 
ing the  broader  question  of  the  relative  degrees  of 
attractiveness  as  it  bears  upon  the  free  choice  of 
occupation  for  subsequent  consideration.  In  the 
industrial  legislation  of  several  countries  various 
occupations  which  are  attended  by  more  than  the 
usual  percentage  of  dangers  to  life  and  limb  are 
classified  as  "  dangerous  occupations  "  and  special 
laws  are  enacted  with  regard  to  them.  We  have 
ample  precedent,  therefore,  for  thus  considering 
the  unusually  dangerous  and  disagreeable  occupa- 
tions as  a  separate  category.  Possibly  the  So- 
cialist State  might  so  regard  them  and  make  spe- 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         167 

cial  provisions  for  their  regulation,  but  with  that 
we  are  not  concerned  here  and  now. 

Now,  a  great  deal  of  the  dangerous  and  dis- 
agreeable work  done  to-day  Is  not  In  the  highest 
and  best  sense  of  the  word  necessary.  Advertis- 
ing alone  involves  an  Incalculable  amount  of  such 
work.  The  use  of  lead  in  glazing  pottery  Is  quite 
unnecessary  and  so  Is  the  use  of  white  phosphorus 
in  making  matches.  These  and  countless  other 
dangerous  methods  of  production  could  easily  be 
dispensed  with.  Their  only  raison  d'etre  Is  the 
fact  that  It  has  been  possible  for  a  few  investors  to 
reap  profit  at  the  peril  of  those  engaged  in  such 
forms  of  production.  The  Socialist  would  elimi- 
nate all  such  unnecessary,  dangerous  occupations 
and  methods  of  production,  for  there  would  be 
none  to  profit  by  their  maintenance.  Matches  and 
glazed  pottery  would  still  be  made  but  not  at  the 
risk  of  lead  poisoning  or  "  phossy  jaw."  Repres- 
sion of  initiative  upon  the  lower  plane  would  stimu- 
late initiative  upon  the  higher  plane,  just  as  the 
prohibition  of  the  employment  of  little  boys  and 
girls  in  the  English  woolen  factories  led  to  the 
invention  of  the  piecing  machine.^ 

Furthermore,  a  great  deal  of  the  dangerous  and 
disagreeable  work  now  being  performed  by  human 

1  "  The  Economics  of  Factory  Legislation,"  in   The  Case  for 
the  Factory  Acts,  by  Mrs.  Sidney  Webb,  p.  20. 


1 68  Applied  Socialism 

beings  to  their  degradation  or  the  injury  of  their 
physical  health  could  be  done  by  machinery.  This 
is  not  the  optimistic  speculation  of  a  dreamer. 
Already  machinery  has  been  invented  and  is  avail- 
able to  do  thousands  of  the  things  which  are  now 
done  by  human  labor  of  the  most  disagreeable  and 
dangerous  kind.  Much  of  this  work  is  indeed 
done  in  competition  with  machinery.  The 
wretchedly  ill-paid  labor  of  women  and  children  in 
sweatshops  under  disease-breeding  conditions,  and 
the  life-destroying  toil  of  little  boys  in  glass 
factories  illustrate  this  important  point. 

Capitalist  society  does  not  and  cannot  p'rovide 
inventive  genius  with  an  effective  incentive  to 
liberate  mankind  from  drudgery  and  dangerous 
labor.  So  long  as  enough  cheap  human  labor  can 
be  had  to  do  it,  the  master  class  will  not  trouble 
itself  to  discover  other  and  better  methods.  The 
degradation  of  human  beings  and  the  waste  of 
their  lives  do  not  matter  so  long  as  they  do  not 
lessen  profits.  Not  only  does  the  employing  class 
fail  to  make  any  effort  to  secure  the  invention  of 
mechanical  appliances  to  prevent  the  degradation 
and  waste  of  human  life,  but  when  such  inventions 
are  made  it  frequently  resists  all  attempts  to  bring 
about  their  use.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the 
capitalist  the  human  labor  is  "  cheaper."  For  the 
larger  social  view  he  does  not  care.  It  does  not 
matter  to  him  that  every  life  wrecked  by  disease 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         169 

is  a  social  loss  and  burden.  This  is  why  all  ef- 
forts to  conserve  human  life,  whether  they  take 
the  form  of  laws  insisting  upon  proper  safety  de- 
vices in  factories,  the  abolition  of  dangerous  proc- 
esses, or  the  maintenance  of  decent  standards  of 
hygiene  and  sanitation  in  tenement  houses  are  re- 
sisted by  capitalists  and  landlords.  Often,  indeed, 
inventions  which  would  materially  lessen  the 
amount  of  dangerous  and  disagreeable  work  to  be 
done  are  bought  by  capitalists  for  the  sole  purpose 
of  preventing  their  use.  Many  a  valuable  patent 
is  thus  purchased  and  pigeonholed,  so  that  the  work 
of  the  inventor  is  lost  to  society.  On  the  other 
hand,  inventions  which  make  possible  greater 
profits  are  eagerly  adopted,  despite  the  fact  that 
they  involve  an  increase  in  the  amount  of  danger- 
ous or  disagreeable  work  to  be  done. 

Pratically  all  effective  effort  to  conserve  human 
life,  like  the  effort  to  conserve  natural  resources, 
has  had  to  be  undertaken  by  the  State  in  the  face 
of  the  organized  opposition  of  the  classes  whose 
Incomes  are  derived  from  rent,  profit  and  interest. 
Each  increase  of  social  ownership  would  neces- 
sarily reduce  the  force  of  such  opposition  until, 
finally,  it  disappeared  all  together.  Every  con- 
ceivable Incentive  would  operate  to  force  the  So- 
cialist State  to  organize  all  Its  resources  for  the 
conservation  of  life  and  happiness,  and  the  elimina- 
tion of  degrading  and  dangerous  labors.     To  this 


170  Applied  Socialism 

end  it  could  and  doubtless  would  offer  honors  and 
rewards  which  would  stimulate  incentive  genius, 
until  even  the  most  repulsive  occupation  of  sewer 
cleaning  was  made  pleasant.  It  might  go  further 
and  remove  the  drudgery  of  housework  by  equip- 
ping every  home  with  the  numerous  electrically 
operated  devices  devised  for  that  purpose.  After 
all,  the  sense  of  social  responsibility  which  Insists 
upon  homes  being  equipped  with  fire  escapes  to 
guard  against  loss  of  life  by  fire,  and  proper 
sewers  to  guard  against  disease,  may  well  take  the 
logical  step  of  insisting  upon  vacuum  cleaners  to 
prevent  dust-borne  diseases,  and  upon  mechanical 
devices  to  prevent  the  needless  exhaustion  of 
women,  the  mothers  of  the  race. 

The  steps  suggested  would  take  us  far  toward 
a  solution  of  our  problem.  At  least  the  most  dis- 
tressing features  of  the  problem  could  thus  be 
solved.  This  claim  will  hardly  be  seriously  chal- 
lenged. But  when  it  has  been  admitted,  candor 
compels  us  to  recognize  the  fact  that  the  elimina- 
tion of  disagreeable  and  dangerous  occupations 
would  take  a  long  time,  that  the  Socialist  State 
during  that  time  would  have  to  provide  the  labor 
for  work  of  this  kind.  It  must  also  be  admitted 
that,  under  the  best  conditions  imaginable,  with  all 
the  essentially  disagreeable,  debasing  and  danger- 
ous occupations  eliminated,  some  occupations  would 
continue  to  be  less  attractive  and  agreeable  than 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         171 

others.  The  problem  Is  much  deeper  and  broader 
than  merely  providing  for  work  that  is  disagree- 
able or  dangerous.  The  question  we  are  bound  to 
face  is:  How  will  the  Socialist  State  meet  the 
practical  problem  presented  by  the  fact  that  some 
kinds  of  work  are  much  more  desirable  than 
others? 

Let  us  begin  with  the  fact  that  there  has  always 
been  a  natural  inequality  of  talent.  There  is  no 
reason  for  supposing  that  this  form  of  inequality 
will  ever  wholly  disappear.  We  may  freely  ad- 
mit so  much  without  calling  into  question  the  con- 
clusion of  Professor  Ward  that  "  all  men  are  in- 
tellectually equal  in  the  sense  that,  in  persons  taken 
at  random  from  different  social  classes  the  chances 
for  talent  or  ability  are  the  same  for  each  class."  ^ 
This  inequality  of  talent  is  the  basis  for  one  very 
effective  method  of  dealing  with  our  problem.  In 
general,  men  will  not  freely  choose  tasks  which 
call  for  greater  talent  and  ability  than  they  pos- 
sess. There  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  there 
would  be  an  automatic  adjustment  of  talent  and 
task  which  would  insure  the  doing  of  the  rough, 
unskilled  and  unpleasant  work  by  those  unfitted 
for  tasks  calling  for  talents  of  a  higher  order  than 
they  possess. 

Quite  apart  from  the  natural  inequality  of  talent 
is  the  marked  diversity  of  talent  which  men  and 
1  Lester  F.  Ward,  Pure  Sociology,  p.  447. 


172  Applied  Socialism 

women  possess.  Two  men  may  be  equally 
gifted,  but  differently,  so  that  one  has  a  natural 
aptitude  for  mechanics  and  the  other  for  chemistry. 
If  the  matter  were  left  to  free  choice  there  is  little 
reason  to  believe  that  the  man  with  the  talent  for 
mechanics  would  select  work  In  a  chemical  labora- 
tory in  preference  to  work  in  a  machine  shop.  As 
a  rule,  men  will  choose  the  tasks  for  which  their 
natural  talents  and  aptitudes  best  fit  them. 
Should  this  process  of  selection  by  personal  incli- 
nation be  considered  too  hazardous  and  uncertain, 
or  should  it  fail  to  give  satisfactory  results,  there 
is  no  reason  why  competitive  tests  should  not  be 
resorted  to.  By  imposing  qualitative  tests  the  So- 
cialist State  could  select  the  workers  best  fitted  for 
various  occupations  far  more  systematically  than 
has  ever  yet  been  done. 

Against  the  suggestion  that  personal  inclina- 
tion based  upon  inequality  and  diversity  of  talent, 
supplemented  by  competitive  tests,  would  solve  our 
problem  two  objections  may  fairly  be  urged.  It 
may  be  objected  that,  however  the  selection  might 
be  made.  It  would  be  unjust  to  give  equal  rewards 
for  a  day's  labor  at  some  easy  and  pleasant  occupa- 
tion and  a  day's  labor  at  some  arduous,  disagree- 
able and  dangerous  occupation.  It  may  well  be 
asked  what  justice  there  can  be  in  giving  the  same 
reward  for  a  certain  number  of  hours  devoted  to 
labor  in  which  the  worker  takes  a  keen  delight 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         173 

which  comes  from  self-realization  and  self-expres- 
sion, and  for  an  equal  number  of  hours  devoted  to 
labor  in  which  the  worker  finds  no  such  delight, 
labor  which  is  ugly,  repellent  and  uninspiring. 

The  question  and  the  difficulty  it  presents  rest 
upon  the  utterly  unwarranted  assumption  that 
equality  and  uniformity  of  remuneration  must  be 
the  basis  of  the  industrial  policy  of  the  Socialist 
State.  Socialism  does  not  involve  the  principle  of 
equal  remuneration,  and  there  is  no  reason  why 
some  occupations  should  not  be  more  highly  paid 
than  others.  An  occupation  so  repellent  in  Itself 
that  few  would  choose  it  might  be  made  exceed- 
ingly attractive  by  ( i )  Increasing  the  amount  of 
remuneration,  or  (2)  reducing  the  number  of 
hours  constituting  the  workday.  If  we  assume 
the  normal  working  day  under  Socialism  to  consist 
of  six  hours,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  by  reducing  the 
number  of  working  hours  In  certain  disagreeable 
occupations  to  three  per  day  such  occupations 
might  well  become  attractive  and  popular. 

The  second  objection  is  not  based  upon  ethical 
considerations,  but  is  based  upon  practical  con- 
siderations. Granting  the  Socialist  contention 
that  the  unequal  opportunities  of  the  present  social 
order  operate  to  repress  natural  and  latent  talent 
and  ability,  the  removal  of  these  Inequalities  must 
result  In  a  much  greater  equality  of  intellectual 
equipment  than  now  exists.     Under  such  condi- 


174  Applied  Socialism 

tions,  It  is  urged,  there  would  be  relatively  few 
unfit  for  any  but  rough,  unskilled  labor,  while  far 
more  than  were  needed  would  be  qualified  for  the 
occupations  requiring  a  high  degree  of  skill  and 
training.  There  would  be  a  dearth  of  laborers  in 
the  occupations  requiring  little  or  no  intellectual 
training,  and  a  surplus  of  laborers  in  those  occupa- 
tions requiring  considerable  skill  and  training,  a 
majority  electing,  possibly,  a  single  attractive  oc- 
cupation. 

Most  of  those  who  make  this  objection  confuse 
the  concept  of  equality  with  that  of  uniformity. 
There  is  no  reason  to  fear  that  because  Socialism 
would  develop  a  greater  degree  of  Intellectual 
equality  than  has  ever  yet  existed  diversity  of  talent 
and  achievement  must  disappear.  We  do  not  deny 
Intellectual  equality  to  the  great  names  in  history 
because  their  work  was  different  In  kind.  Is  Fara- 
day inferior  or  superior  to  Jenner,  Robert  Koch,  In- 
ferior or  superior  to  Samuel  Morse?  Just  as  we 
cannot  balance  great  achievements  In  widely  dif- 
ferent fields  of  effort  and  determine  with  anything 
like  precision  their  relative  merit,  so  we  cannot 
sharply  classify  occupations  and  say  which  offer 
the  greatest  scope  for  Intellectual  interest.  One 
man  will  find  mechanics  as  full  of  Intellectual 
Interest  and  challenge  as  another  will  find 
chemistry,  or  still  another  will  find  medicine.  Un- 
til quite  recently   farming  in  general  and   dairy- 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         175 

farming  in  particular  were  regarded  as  occupations 
demanding  only  a  low  standard  of  mental  develop- 
ment and  offering  little  intellectual  stimulus. 
Bacteriology  and  agricultural  chemistry  have  cre- 
ated a  new  conception  of  these  occupations,  and 
we  are  fast  coming  to  a  general  recognition  of  the 
fact  that  successful  farming  requires  just  as  much 
trained  Intelligence,  and  offers  as  much  opportunity 
for  intellectual  development,  as  any  other  occupa- 
tion. 

Even  If  we  attach  the  greatest  possible  impor- 
tance to  the  objection  we  are  considering,  then, 
there  is  no  reason  to  fear  that  Intellectual  uniform- 
ity will  lead  to  the  overcrowding  of  a  single  occu- 
pation or  group  of  occupations.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  a  few  forms  of  rough  and  unskilled  labor, 
all  the  necessary  work  of  the  world  may  be  made 
equally  attractive  to  men  of  equal  but  diverse  in- 
tellectual ability  and  interest.  It  will  be  within 
the  power  of  the  Socialist  State  to  make  even  the 
most  repellent  forms  of  labor  attractive  by  In- 
creasing the  remuneration  or  reducing  the  hours  of 
labor  In  those  occupations,  reversing  the  rule  of 
present  society  according  to  which  such  labor  Is 
generally  the  worst  paid. 

Under  the  most  favorable  conditions  it  Is  highly 
probable  that  there  would  at  times  be  an  oversup- 
ply  of  available  laborers  in  some  branches  of  in- 
dustry,   and    an    undersupply   In    other   branches. 


176  Applied  Socialism 

Under  our  present  form  of  production  the  adjust- 
ment of  this  condition  is  left  to  chance  and  the 
unregulated  force  of  economic  circumstances. 
Overwork  for  some  and  unemployment  for  others 
are  coexistent  phenomena.  In  those  branches  of 
industry  where  there  are  too  many  laborers  the 
employers  take  advantage  of  the  condition  to  re- 
duce wages,  increase  the  hours  of  labor,  or  intensify 
the  pressure  under  which  the  laborers  must  work. 
This  is  done  solely  with  a  view  to  the  employer's 
profit,  and  not  as  a  deliberate  attempt  to  adjust  the 
supply  of  labor  to  the  demand.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  those  branches  where  there  is  a  scarcity  of 
laborers  wages  are  reluctantly  raised  in  order  to 
increase  the  supply.  Here,  again,  there  is  no  at- 
tempt to  bring  about  the  scientific  organization  of 
industry  and  the  proper  adjustment  of  the  supply 
of  labor  force  to  the  demand  for  it.  The  whole 
process  is  planless  and  leads  to  social  and  industrial 
anarchy. 

As  the  organizer  and  director  of  the  principal 
economic  activities,  the  Socialist  State  would  be 
able  to  deal  with  this  problem  in  a  scientific  man- 
ner. It  would  be  able  to  do  systematically  that 
which  capitalist  enterprise  has  never  been  able  to 
do,  and,  in  fact,  has  never  attempted  to  do,  except 
in  a  spasmodic  and  haphazard  way  for  its  own 
selfish  and  anti-social  ends.  By  increasing  the  re- 
muneration and  decreasing  the  number  of  hours  in 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         177 

the  branches  of  Industry  suffering  from  a  dearth  of 
laborers;  by  imposing  more  difficult  tests  for  em- 
ployment In  the  overcrowded  branches  of  Industry, 
and  even  by  decreasing  the  remuneration  or  in- 
creasing the  number  of  hours  should  there  be  need 
of  such  measures,  the  Socialist  State  could  adjust 
the  supply  of  labor  to  the  need  for  labor,  and 
avoid  the  evils  Inseparable  from  our  present  plan- 
less and  anti-social  methods.  The  agencies  em- 
ployed might  not  differ  from  those  which  have  been 
employed  by  the  capitalist  class,  but  the  result 
would  be  different.  The  Socialist  State  would  have 
the  immense  advantage  of  dealing  with  Industry  as 
a  whole,  in  a  systematic  manner,  with  a  view  to  the 
interest  of  society  In  general. 

II 

We  come  now  to  the  Important  question  of  the 
method  of  remunerating  labor  under  Socialism. 
A  great  many  of  our  critics,  and  not  a  few  of  our 
friends,  are  sorely  disturbed  when  they  first  en- 
counter the  statement  that  Socialism  does  not  In- 
volve equal  remuneration  for  all  workers,  irrespec- 
tive of  the  amount  or  quality  of  labor  performed. 
Yet  the  communistic  principle  of  equal  remunera- 
tion for  unequal  efforts  has  never  been  a  recog- 
nized principle  of  the  modern  Socialist  movement. 
Kautsky  and  Vandervelde  may  fairly  be  regarded 
as  typical  exponents  of  "  orthodox  "  Marxian  So^ 


178  Applied  Socialism 

clallsm,  and  they  both  accept  the  view  that  So- 
cialism does  not  imply  equality  of  reward,  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  philosophy  or  programme  of 
Socialism  to  prevent  the  Socialist  State  from  pay- 
ing more  to  some  workers  than  to  others.^ 

The  Idea  of  equal  remuneration  belongs  to  Com- 
munism. The  perfect  ideal  of  Communism  Is 
summed  up  in  Louis  Blanc's  noble  motto,  "  From 
each  according  to  his  ability,  to  each  according  to 
his  need."  It  is  a  beautiful  ideal,  but  obviously 
attainable  only  by  a  perfected  humanity,  a  highly 
socialized  society  in  which  every  member  could  be 
relied  upon  to  strive  for  the  common  good  to  the 
full  extent  of  his  ability,  and  ,to  practice  the  virtue 
of  self-restraint  to  such  a  degree  as  might  be  neces- 
sary to  limit  his  taking  from  the  common  stock 
enough  to  satisfy  his  need. 

It  may  be  that  human  society  Is  capable  of  this 
degree  of  perfection.  Socialism  neither  affirms  nor 
denies  that  belief.  The  Socialist  may  join  with 
the  Communist  in  his  faith  In  the  ultimate  attain- 
ment of  that  blissful  state  of  social  unity,  or  he 
may  join  the  most  skeptical  Individualist  In  mock- 
ing it  as  a  vain  dream,  a  mirage  luring  mankind 
with  false  hopes  further  Into  the  desert  of  disap- 
pointment and  despair.  Socialism  concerns  itself 
only  with  that  which  It  believes  to  be  the  next  great 

1  Kautsky,    The    Social    Revolution,    pp.    128-135;    Vander- 
VELDE,  Collectivism,  pp.  149-150. 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         179 

step  in  social  evolution,  not  with  the  ultimate  goal 
of  society. 

Upon  the  ground  of  pure  reason  and  justice 
equal  remuneration  of  all  labor  cannot  be  success- 
fully assailed.  How  are  we  to  measure  and  com- 
pare the  relative  value  of  different  kinds  of  social 
service?  By  what  rule  shall  we  decide  that  he 
who  makes  and  cleans  our  sewers,  and  so  protects 
us  against  epidemics  of  disease,  is  more  or  less 
valuable  to  society  than  he  who  in  his  laboratory 
invents  new  productive  processes  which  enable  us 
to  enjoy  greater  material  comforts?  Further- 
more, even  if  we  discover  such  a  rule  enabling  us 
to  determine  with  exactness  the  relative  value  of 
each  kind  of  social  service,  how  shall  we  justly  de- 
cide that  he  who  performs  the  greater  service  merits 
the  greater  reward  and  that  he  who  performs  the 
lesser  service  merits  the  lesser  reward?  Were 
their  opportunities  equal?  Had  each  an  equal  in- 
heritance of  physical,  mental  and  moral  strength 
and  an  equally  favorable  environment? 

Family  life  at  its  best  has  often  been  glorified  as 
an  epitome  of  what  the  ideal  Social  State  would  be, 
a  social  microcosm  illustrating  the  ideal  toward 
which  the  race  forever  strives.  It  is  not  without 
significance,  then,  that  in  the  family  at  its  best  we 
find  the  Communistic  principle  prevailing.  We 
do  not  find  in  the  best  developed  family  life  that 
the  parents  discriminate  against  the  weaker  chil- 


l8o  Applied  Socialism 

dren  and  lavish  extra  tenderness  and  material 
advantage  upon  the  stronger  children.  The  time 
may  come  when  society  as  a  whole  will  attain  that 
degree  of  humanity  and  enlightened  justice  which 
the  family  already  foreshadows.  Socialism  may 
prove  to  be  a  step  in  the  direction  of  Communism. 

Curiously  enough,  the  principle  of  remuneration 
which  is  most  commonly  set  forth  in  the  popular 
propaganda  literature  of  Socialism  is  not  that  of 
Communism,  but  that  of  pure  Individualism.  We 
are  solemnly  assured  by  many  of  the  writers  of 
this  sort  of  literature  that  "  under  Socialism  each 
worker  will  get  the  full  value  of  the  product  of 
his  own  labor,"  minus  his  share  of  the  necessary 
social  charges  for  the  maintenance  of  the  State, 
the  support  of  the  sick,  the  infirm,  the  aged,  and 
others  incompetent  to  labor.  It  is  by  no  means 
an  unusual  thing  to  see  banners  borne  in  Socialist 
processions  bearing  the  legend,  "  To  each  the  full 
value  of  the  product  of  his  toil." 

Now,  this  is  obviously  the  ideal  of  Individualism 
rather  than  of  Socialism,  and  its  adoption  by  So- 
cialists can  only  be  accounted  for  upon  the  hypothe- 
sis that  in  their  eagerness  to  discover  popular 
watchwords  and  easy  formulas  they  have  lost  sight 
of  the  principle  they  wish  to  advocate,  and  content 
themselves  with  watchwords  and  formulas  which 
upon  analysis  prove  to  be  expressions  of  a  very 
different    principle.     Whatever    the    explanation 


Labrjv  and  Its  Remuneration         i8i 

may  be,  the  fact  remains  that  the  principle  of  giv- 
ing to  each  producer  the  full  value  of  his  product, 
less  his  share  of  the  necessary  social  expenditures, 
is  purely  individualistic,  and,  what  is  more  impor- 
tant, quite  unscientific  and  reactionary. 

The  fundamental  fallacy  in  the  principle  is  ob- 
vious enough.  Production  is  too  highly  socialized 
to  make  the  precise  share  of  the  individual  pro- 
ducer a  measurable  quantity.  It  is  impossible  to 
tell  what  share  of  the  total  value  of  any  modern 
industrial  product  is  created  by  the  individual 
worker.  In  the  modern  factory  the  contribution 
of  the  Individual  worker  loses  its  identity.  No  in- 
dividual can  say  of  a  commodity,  "  This  thing  I 
have  made."  Specialization  and  subdivision  have 
made  of  modern  production  a  collective  process. 
No  human  intellect  could  ever  determine  the  share 
of  a  particular  worker  in  a  particular  commodity 
produced  under  these  conditions. 

This  individualistic  ideal  which  masquerades 
as  a  Socialist  ideal  is,  therefore,  an  impossible  one. 
The  more  socialized  industry  becomes,  the  more 
completely  will  the  individual  effort  lose  its  identity 
in  the  stream  of  collective  effort  and  the  further 
shall  we  pass  from  the  state  of  production  which 
made  it  possible  for  the  Individual  worker's  exact 
share  in  the  production  of  wealth  to  be  determined. 
Here,  in  fact,  lies  the  main  strength  of  our  appeal 
to  the  economic  interest  of  the  workers  as  a  class. 


l82  Applied  Socialism 

So  long  as  individualism  In  production  prevailed, 
the  single  worker  taking  the  raw  material  and 
fashioning  It  into  a  commodity,  private  ownership 
of  the  tools  of  industry  involved  neither  servitude, 
upon  the  one  hand,  nor  the  power  to  exploit  labor 
upon  the  other  hand.  Collective  ownership  of  the 
tools  of  industry  was  neither  necessary  nor  practi- 
cable. Collective  ownership  is  the  necessary  out- 
come of  collective  production. 

There  is  only  one  way  by  which  the  Socialist 
State  could  give  to  each  individual  the  full  value 
of  the  product  of  his  labor,  namely,  by  going  back 
to  the  old  hand-labor  system  of  production.  But 
that  is  unthinkable.  We  do  not  want  to  destroy 
machinery  and  social  production.  Our  Ideal  is  not 
based  upon  the  hope  of  retrogression.  It  is  rather 
based  upon  the  hope  of  further  socialization.  In 
other  words,  we  are  driven  by  the  logic  of  eco- 
nomic development  ever  further  from  the  economic 
ideal  of  Individualism  toward  that  of  Communism. 

Most  Socialists  feel  this  to  be  true,  even  though 
they  use  the  old  Individualistic  formula,  and  speak 
of  Communism  as  a  fuller  development  of  Social- 
ism —  a  stage  higher  in  the  social  ascent.  Marx 
himself  seems  to  have  shared  this  view.  One  of 
the  very  few  of  his  utterances  upon  the  subject  is 
contained  In  his  famous  letter  to  Bracke,  Lieb- 
knecht,  Bebel  and  Auer  criticizing  the  Gotha  Pro- 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         183 

gramme.  In  that  letter  he  says :  "  In  a  higher 
phase  of  Communist  society,  after  the  servile  sub- 
ordination of  Individuals  to  the  division  of  labor 
and  therewith  the  contrast  between  intellectual  and 
manual  labor,  has  disappeared;  after  labor  has  be- 
come not  only  the  means  of  life,  but  itself  the  first 
necessity  of  life;  after,  along  with  the  all-around 
development  of  the  individual,  the  forces  of  pro- 
duction also  have  grown  and  all  the  fountains  of 
confederate  wealth  flow  more  freely  —  only  then 
can  the  narrow  bourgeois  horizon  of  right  be 
wholly  crossed,  and  society  inscribe  upon  its  ban- 
ners:  '  From  each  according  to  his  abilities,  to 
each  according  to  his  needs  ' !  " 

The  letter  from  which  these  words  are  taken 
was  written  by  Marx  in  criticism  of  the  programme 
upon  which  the  two  factions  of  the  German  Social- 
ist movement,  the  Lassalleans  and  the  Marxists, 
proposed  to  unite  in  1875.  Marx's  letter  was 
suppressed  by  those  to  whom  It  was  addressed,  the 
unity  of  the  two  factions  consummated  and  the 
programme  adopted  In  spite  of  his  opposition.^ 
That  programme  contained  as  Its  opening  declara- 
tion the  following  sentence :  "  Labor  is  the  source 
of  all  wealth,  and  of  all  culture,  and  since  labor  is 
only  possible  In  society  and  by  means  of  society, 

1  Cf.  John  Spargo,  Karl  Marx,  His  Life  and  Work,  pp.  308- 
313- 


184  Applied  Socialism 

the  uncurtailed  returns  of  labor  belong  to  all  mem- 
bers of  society  with  equal  right."  ^ 

Now,  something  very  like  this  declaration  is 
quite  commonly  encountered  in  our  Socialist  propa- 
ganda. How  often  do  we  hear  it  declaimed  that 
"  all  wealth  is  produced  by  labor  and,  therefore, 
ought  to  belong  to  the  laborers."  But  Marx  was 
never  guilty  of  that  error.  Nowhere  does  he  at- 
tempt to  base  an  argument  for  Socialism  upon"  the 
"  right  of  labor  "  to  the  whole  product  of  industry. 
"  Labor  is  not  the  source  of  all  wealth,"  he  de- 
clared in  his  letter  to  his  German  disciples. 
"  Nature  is  just  as  much  the  source  of  use  values 
(and  of  such,  to  be  sure,  is  material  wealth  com- 
posed) as  is  labor,  which  itself  is  but  the  expres- 
sion of  a  natural  force,  of  human  labor-power." 
This  is  something  more  than  an  academic  quibble, 
for  Marx  goes  on  to  demonstrate  that  "  it  is  just 
because  of  the  limitation  of  labor  by  natural  con- 
ditions that  it  follows  that  the  man  who  possesses 
no  other  property  than  his  labor-power,  must  in 
all  conditions  of  society  and  civilization  be  the  slave 
of  other  men  who  have  made  themselves  the 
owners  of  the  objective  conditions  of  labor.  He 
can  work  only  by  their  permission,  consequently 
can  live  only  by  their  permission." 

From  time  to  time  there  have  been  many 
learned  attempts  to  refute  Marxian  Socialism  by 

1  Italics  are  mine.     J.   S. 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         185 

the  easy  method  of  demonstrating  the  Impossibility 
of  basing  a  workable  system  of  distribution  upon 
the  principle  of  giving  to  each  worker  the  value 
of  his  labor-product.  The  authors  of  most  of 
these  attempts,  like  many  ill-informed  Socialists, 
have  made  the  mistake  of  supposing  that  Marx's 
theory  of  value  must  be  regarded  as  the  basis  of 
the  system  of  distribution  which  the  Socialist  State 
must  adopt.  They  have  taken  it  for  granted  that 
the  whole  fabric  of  Socialist  society  would  depend 
upon  the  perfect  application  of  the  law  of  value, 
the  exchange  of  equivalent  values.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  Marx's  theory  of  value  has  no  more  to  do 
with  the  method  of  distribution  in  the  Socialist 
State  than  with  the  length  and  breadth  of  the 
canals  of  Mars, 

The  title-page  of  Capital^  the  great  work  In 
which  Marx  developed  his  theory  of  value,  con- 
tains a  suggestive  subtitle.  It  reads,  "  An 
Analysis  of  the  Capitalist  Mode  of  Production." 
This  subtitle  Is  a  statement  of  the  scope  and  pur- 
pose of  the  book,  and  explains  much.  The  only 
purpose  of  the  book  and  the  theory  of  value  which 
It  sets  forth  is  to  analyze  and  describe  the  workings 
of  the  capitalist  system.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with 
any  other  system  of  society,  "  In  the  whole 
chapter  on  Value  in  his  Capital,"  says  Engels, 
"  there  Is  not  the  slightest  hint  whether  and  to 
what  extent  this  theory  of  v^alue  is  applicable  to 


1 86  Applied  Socialism 

other  forms  of  society."  ^  Kautsky  makes  a  simi- 
lar observation  and  warns  us  that  "  There  could 
be  no  greater  error  than  to  consider  that  one  of 
the  tasks  of  the  Socialist  society  is  to  see  to  it 
that  the  law  of  value  is  brought  into  perfect  opera- 
tion and  that  only  equivalent  values  are  ex- 
changed." - 

Briefly  stated,  the  Marxian  theory  of  value  is 
simply  that,  "  in  those  societies  in  which  the 
capitalist  mode  of  production  prevails,"  to  quote 
from  the  opening  sentence  of  Capital,  the  value  of 
a  commodity  is  determined  by  the  labor  socially 
necessary  at  the  time  for  its  production.  In  other 
words,  it  is  not  the  amount  of  actual  labor 
embodied  in  commodities  which  determines  their 
value,  but  abstract  labor,  and,  that  "  abstract " 
labor  is  social  —  the  "socially  necessary"  labor. 
Clearly  we  have  implied  here  the  impossibility  of 
determining  value  upon  the  basis  of  actual  indi- 
vidual labor.  Clearly,  also,  those  Socialists  who 
propose  to  substitute  "  labor  certificates "  for 
money,  measuring  the  value  of  commodities  by  the 
labor  time  actually  consumed  in  their  production, 
in  the  belief  that  they  are  thus  meeting  the  re- 
quirements of  the  Marxian  theory  of  value,  are 

1  F.  Engels,  Herrn  Eugen  Diihrlng's  Um-ii-dlzung  der  Wissen- 
schaft,  p.  209. 

-  Karl  Kautsky,  The  Social  Revolution,  p.  129. 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         187 

mistaken.     They  fail  utterly  to  comprehend  that 
theory. 

Now,  while  it  is  true  that  no  standard  of  distri- 
bution or  method  of  remunerating  labor  can  be 
logically  deduced  from  Marx's  theory  of  value, 
it  must  be  admitted  that  in  his  letter  upon  the 
Gotha  Programme,  Marx  himself  suggested  that, 
pending  the  development  of  that  "  higher  phase 
of  Communist  society  "  in  which  each  Individual 
will  give  according  to  his  ability  and  take  accord- 
ing to  his  need,  the  system  of  distribution  might  be 
based  upon  a  system  of  labor-time  checks.  He  re- 
gards all  labor  as  of  equal  value,  hour  for  hour, 
and  proposes  to  give  the  individual  certificates 
representing  his  full  labor-time,  minus  the  neces- 
sary deductions  for  social  purposes.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  following  words  : 

What  we  have  here  before  us,  is  a  Communist  society,  not  as 
it  has  developed  up  from  its  own  foundation  but  the  reverse, 
just  as  it  issues  from  capitalist  society;  which,  therefore,  is  in 
every  respect,  economically,  morally,  and  intellectually  still 
encumbered  with  the  mother  marks  of  the  old  society  out  of 
whose  lap  it  has  come. 

Accordingly,  the  single  producer  (after  the  deduction)  re- 
ceives back  exactly  what  he  gives  to  it.  What  he  has  given 
to  it,  is  his  Individual  amount  of  work.  For  example,  the 
social  workday  consists  of  the  sum  of  individual  working 
hours;  the  individual  working  time  of  the  single  producer  is 
that  part  of  the  social  workday  furnished  by  him,  his  share  of 
it.  He  receives  from  society  a  receipt  that  he  has  furnished  so 
and  so  much  work  (after  deduction  of  his  work  for  the  common 


1 88  Applied  Socialism 

funds)  and  with  this  receipt  he  draws  out  of  the  social  supply 
of  the  means  of  consumption  as  much  as  costs  an  equal  amount 
of  work.  The  same  amount  of  work  which  he  has  given  so- 
ciety in  one  form,  he  receives  back  in  another  form. 

Obviously  the  same  principle  governs  here  that  regulates  the 
exchange  of  commodities,  in  so  far  as  it  is  the  exchange  of 
equal  values.  Substance  and  form  are  changed  because  under 
the  altered  condition  no  one  can  give  anything  except  his  work 
and  because  on  the  other  hand,  nothing  can  become  the  prop- 
erty of  the  individual  except  individual  means  of  consumption. 

But  in  so  far  as  the  distribution  of  the  last  amongst  the 
single  producers  is  concerned,  the  same  principle  governs  as 
in  the  exchange  of  equivalent  commodities,  a  certain  amount 
of  labor  in  one  form  is  exchanged  for  an  equal  amount  of 
labor   in   another  form. 

Now  this  remarkable  utterance  by  the  great 
founder  of  modern  scientific  Socialism  does  not  in- 
volve the  necessity  of  modifying  anything  we  have 
said  upon  the  subject.  In  the  first  place,  it  will  be 
observed  that  Marx  does  not  make  the  claim  that 
the  principle  of  distribution  which  he  suggests  is  a 
necessary  application  of  his  theory  of  value.  Such 
a  claim  cannot  be  made  for  it.  There  is  no  neces- 
sary connection  between  the  theory  of  value  with 
its  abstract  social  labor  and  the  crude  rule  of  dis- 
tribution based  upon  the  easy  expedient  of  regard- 
ing all  labor  as  of  equal  value,  hour  for  hour.  In 
the  second  place,  it  will  be  noted  that  the  scheme 
of  distribution  which  Marx  sketches  in  his  letter 
conforms  to  the  communistic  ideal  of  equal  re- 
muneration, rather  than  to  the  individualistic  ideal 
of  giving  to  each  worker  the  value  of  his  product. 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         189 

"  To  search  for  the  portion  of  an  Individuars 
labor  In  a  social  product  is,  in  the  vast  majority  of 
cases,  like  trying  to  find  a  needle  In  a  haystack," 
says  Vandervelde.^  Marx  does  not  waste  effort 
trying  to  find  the  needle.  He  Ignores  the  Indi- 
vidualistic ideal,  and,  recognizing  that  the  frultful- 
ness  of  individual  labor  is  largely  due  to  social  ef- 
forts, past  and  present,  embraces  the  communistic 
Ideal  to  the  extent  of  saying  that  the  weak  and  in- 
efficient worker  who  labors  for  a  given  number  of 
hours  must  receive  as  much  for  his  efforts  as  the 
strong  and  efficient  worker  who  labors  for  the  same 
amount  of  time,  and  in  that  time  creates  far  more 
value. 

It  must  be  confessed  that  in  sketching  the  sys- 
tem of  distribution  for  the  future  Marx  fell  into 
the  old  Utopian  error  of  preparing  a  plan  for  the 
reorganization  of  society  according  to  an  abstract 
principle.  His  plan  does  not  differ  greatly  from 
the  "  equitable  labor  exchanges  "  of  Owen  and  his 
disciples  which  ended  so  disastrously.  As  an 
Incident  of  biographical  value.  Illustrating  the  fact 
that,  like  so  many  other  great  thinkers,  Marx  oc- 
casionally lapsed  Into  the  very  error  he  most 
vigorously  assailed,  the  forecast  of  the  scheme  of 
distribution  which  Marx  made  In  his  criticism  of 
the  Gotha  Programme  is  interesting  and  worthy 
of  note.  But  It  has  no  other  value. 
1  Emile  Vandervelde,  Collectivism,  p.  143. 


190  Applied  Socialism 

What,  then,  is  the  correct  method  of  approach- 
ing this  Important  question,  the  method  of  science 
as  distinguished  from  that  of  Utopianism? 

The  true  Marxist,  the  alpha  and  omega  of  whose 
philosophy  is  evolution,  will  not  be  greatly 
troubled  by  this  question.  The  Utopian  method 
is  to  take  some  abstract  principle  and  make  it  the 
basis  of  plans  and  schemes  for  the  arbitrary  shap- 
ing of  social  institutions.  The  scientific  method  is 
to  take  the  facts  of  the  present,  and,  bearing  the 
great  central  fact  of  evolution  in  mind,  attempt  to 
discern  the  tendencies  of  social  and  economic  de- 
velopment. Whatever  forecasts  we  may  make 
concerning  this  or  any  other  function  of  the  So- 
cialist State  must  be  logical  deductions  from  the 
facts  of  economic  and  social  development,  from 
the  realities  of  the  present. 

The  Socialist  State,  as  we  have  seen,  cannot  be 
other  than  a  development  of  the  existing  state. 
Its  methods  of  production,  distribution  and  ex- 
change must  take  their  rise  from  the  methods  de- 
veloped by  capitalist  society.  Similarly,  the 
methods  of  remunerating  labor  must  have  as  their 
starting  point  the  methods  prevailing  in  capitalist 
society.  From  that  point  they  may  develop  to  the 
point  of  equal  remuneration  for  all  workers,  or 
even  to  the  extreme  of  free  Communism,  but  with 
that  we  are  not  here  and  now  concerned.  The 
important  fact  to  us  is  that  Socialist  society  will 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         191 

Inherit  from  present  society  a  great  many  social 
functions,  forms  and  Institutions,  among  them  the 
method  of  paying  wages,  unequal  In  amount,  for 
services  rendered.  Some  of  the  forms,  functions 
and  Institutions  which  the  Socialist  State  Inherits  it 
may  discard  very  speedily;  others  It  may  retain  for 
a  considerable  period  of  time.  The  Socialist  State 
will  not  be  static.  Progress  will  still  be  made,  and 
the  Socialist  State  will  have  its  periods  of  Infancy, 
growth  and  maturity. 

This  much  we  may  say  with  tolerable  certainty; 
at  first,  and  probably  for  a  considerable  period  of 
time,  wages  will  be  paid  for  labor  —  wages  un- 
equal In  amount  and  paid  in  money.^  What,  then, 
becomes  of  the  shibboleth  which  we  have  so  long 
Inscribed  on  our  banners,  the  "  abolition  of  the 
wage  system  "  ?  Is  not  the  possibility  of  retaining 
the  plan  of  wage  payment,  for  any  length  of  time. 
Inconsistent  with  that  ancient  party  shibboleth  and 
the  ideal  It  expresses,  and  suggestive  of  fatal  com- 
promise? To  that  perfectly  just  and  inevitable 
question  I  must  answer  with  an  emphatic  "  No." 

The  phrase  "  the  abolition  of  the  wage 
system,"  which  Is  so  frequently  used  In  our  litera- 
ture, must  not  be  Interpreted  too  narrowly.  It  Is 
very  similar  to  that  other  phrase,  "  the  abolition 

1  Cf.  HiLLQUlT,  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  pp.  114- 
119;  Kautsky,  The  Social  Revolution,  pp.  128-135;  Spargo, 
Socialism,  pp.  314-316. 


192  Applied  Socialism 

of  capital,"  which  has  troubled  so  many  persons. 
By  the  average  man,  the  latter  phrase  is  commonly 
understood  to  mean  the  abolition  of  money  capital, 
machinery,  and  capital  stock,  and  he  wonders  just 
how  production  is  to  be  carried  on  when  these  are 
abolished.     We  have  to  explain  that  we  do  not 
mean  the  abolition  of  the  things  which  he  calls 
"  capital,"   but   the   social   relation   in   which  the 
things  are  used.     In  like  manner,  the  average  man, 
when  he  encounters  the  phrase,  "  abolition  of  the 
wage   system,"   is   very   apt  to   misunderstand  It. 
He  concludes  that  either  we  want  to  have  each 
worker  barter  his  surplus  product,  or  a  military 
form  of  organizing  labor,  with  a  regular  system 
of  distributing  rations  and  uniforms.     He  does  not 
understand  that  by  the  abolition  of  wages  we  mean 
the   abolition   of   a   social   relation   which   Is   ex- 
pressed through  the  form  of  wages,  the  power  of 
the  owners  of  the  means  of  production  and  ex- 
change to  exploit  the  producers  of  wealth. 

But  that  Is  exactly  what  Is  meant.  We  are  no 
more  concerned  to  abolish  the  material  form  — 
wage  payment  —  than  we  are  to  abolish  the 
material  things  —  money,  machinery  and  produc- 
tion goods  —  called  capital.  Just  as  In  the  case 
of  capital  we  hope  to  abolish  the  social  relation 
expressed  through  the  medium  of  the  things  by  so- 
cializing the  things  themselves,  so  our  real  pur- 
pose  is   to   abolish   the   social   relation   expressed 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         193 

through  the  form  of  wages  by  socializing  the  form 
itself,  the  thing.  This  is  the  real  task  of  Social- 
ist society,  and  if  we  are  not  going  to  waste  our 
strength  in  quixotic  assaults  upon  the  non-essential, 
we  shall  distinguish  between  the  outward  form  of 
the  wage  system  and  its  Inward  and  social  force. 

By  wages  to-day  we  mean  a  money  payment  by 
one  individual  to  other  individuals  for  the  ex- 
penditure of  labor  force  directed  to  certain  speci- 
fied ends.  This  money  payment  is  not  an  approxi- 
mation to  the  value  created  by  the  expenditure  of 
that  labor  force;  indeed,  it  bears  no  relation  to  it 
as  a  rule.  It  is  a  sum  paid  in  lieu  of  that  value, 
and  is  fixed  by  the  competition  for  labor  which 
goes  on  among  the  laborers  when  the  means  of 
production  are  owned  and  controlled  by  others. 
Under  these  conditions  the  money  payment  tends 
to  approximate  the  cost  of  maintaining  the 
workers  and  their  families,  rather  than  the  values 
created.  The  entire  objective  of  the  wage-payer 
throughout  the  whole  process  is  the  gathering  of  a 
value  greater  than  that  represented  by  the  wages 
paid. 

Let  us  suppose,  by  way  of  contrast,  that  we  have 
a  democratic  state  organization  of  industry. 
Money  payments  for  work  performed  still  prevail, 
and  the  old  name  "  wages  "  is  retained.  Wage- 
payer  and  wage-receiver  now  represent  the  same 
interest.     The  objective  now  is  not  the  enrichment 


194  Applied  Socialism 

of  one  class  through  the  labor  of  another  class, 
but  the  good  of  the  State,  with  which  the  good  of 
the  individual  is  synonymous.  To  secure  as  close 
an  approximation  as  possible  to  an  equal  distribu- 
tion of  the  products  of  labor  among  all  the  mem- 
bers of  society  is  the  conscious  aim  of  the  State. 
Surely,  here  we  have  the  socialization  of  wages, 
together  with  the  abolition  of  the  wage  system  as 
we  know  it  to-day.  Of  course,  the  Socialist  State 
might  abolish  the  name  "  wages  "  if  it  chose  to  do 
so,  but  it  would  be  little  likely  to  concern  itself  with 
such  non-essentials. 

We  come  now  to  the  question  of  unequal  re- 
muneration and  the  degree  to  which  such  inequality 
is  compatible  with  Socialist  principles.  Because 
we  admit  the  possibility  of  unequal  wages  in  the 
Socialist  regime  it  does  not  follow  that  the  present 
glaring  inequalities  would  be  continued.  It  is  im- 
possible to  conceive  the  Socialist  State  tolerating 
the  extremes  represented  to-day  by  the  manager 
with  a  salary  of  half  a  million  dollars  and  the 
laborer  with  a  wage  of  a  dollar  a  day.  Even  if 
such  extremes  existed  when  the  degree  to  which 
collective  ownership  In  the  means  of  production 
reached  the  point  at  which  it  became  possible  to 
speak  of  organized  society  as  a  Socialist  State,  they 
would  of  necessity  soon  disappear,  for  very  ob- 
vious reasons.  In  the  first  place,  they  would  be  too 
repugnant  to  the  democratic  sense  of  justice  to  be 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         195 

long  tolerated.  In  the  second  place,  the  equahza- 
tion  of  opportunity  and  the  abolition  of  privilege 
would  inevitably  result  in  the  development  of  so 
many  available  workers  of  trained  ability  for  the 
highest  positions  that,  by  the  operation  of  the  law 
of  supply  and  demand,  without  any  action  by  the 
State,  a  great  degree  of  Inequality  would  disap- 
pear. 

Granting  that  the  ultimate  Ideal  is  that  of  Com- 
munism, it  follows  that  in  the  Socialist  State  there 
must  be  a  constant  tendency  toward  approximate 
equality  of  remuneration.  It  is  not  necessary, 
however,  that  we  should  contemplate  this  being 
brought  about  by  legislative  enactment.  The 
abolition  of  all  the  class  privileges  of  to-day,  which 
give  the  sons  and  daughters  of  the  well-to-do  ex- 
ceptional advantages  and  a  practical  monopoly  of 
the  best  paid  and  the  most  desirable  occupations, 
would  enormously  increase  the  available  supply  of 
workers  for  all  such  occupations.  By  the  equali- 
zation of  opportunity  the  Socialist  State  would 
create  a  force  which  would  automatically  operate 
to  equalize  remuneration  by  increasing  the  number 
of  competitors  for  the  positions  which  demand 
relatively  high  Intellectual  and  educational  re- 
quirements, and  lessening  the  competition  for  the 
positions  requiring  relatively  low  Intellectual  and 
educational  qualifications. 

The  standardization  of  salaries  which  Is  becom- 


196  Applied  Socialism 

ing  more  general  every  year  may  prove  to  be  one 
of  the  steps  toward  the  solution  of  the  problem. 
It  Is  quite  probable  that  there  will  be  a  gradation 
of  occupations  according  to  their  social  utility  and 
the  relative  degrees  of  ability  demanded  by  them, 
wages  being  fixed  accordingly.  Thus  wages  will 
be  determined  by  the  standard  of  social  utility,  de- 
termined, ultimately,  by  (a)  the  relation  of  supply 
to  demand,  and  (b)  ability,  fitness  for  particular 
work.  Including  what  the  economists  call  pain-cost 
—  the  labor  and  sacrifice  involved  in  acquiring  the 
requisite  fitness.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe 
that,  within  a  reasonable  period  of  time,  the  opera- 
tion of  the  law  of  supply  and  demand  would  re- 
sult in  approximate  equality  of  Income.  In  any 
case,  whatever  degree  of  Inequality  might  persist, 
it  Is  certain  that  the  gross  Inequalities  of  to-day 
would  disappear;  there  would  be  no  exploitation  of 
class  by  class,  and  the  worker  would  find  the  re- 
wards of  collective  service  Infinitely  richer  and 
more  justly  distributed  than  the  workers  In  capital- 
ist society  ever  knew. 

We  must  not  fall  Into  the  error  of  supposing 
that  the  operation  of  the  law  of  supply  and  de- 
mand In  the  Socialist  regime  can  be  compared  to 
the  blind  force  which  drives  us  on  In  our  present 
economic  chance-world.  In  a  society  in  which  the 
social  agencies  of  production  and  exchange  are 
collectively  owned  and  democratically  governed, 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         197 

and  in  which  there  is  no  privileged  class,  but  a  per- 
fect communism  of  opportunity,  the  free  choice  of 
the  citizens,  bounded  only  by  the  limitations  im- 
posed upon  them  by  nature,  expresses  itself  in 
the  relation  of  supply  and  demand.  But  in  our 
present  society,  with  the  social  agencies  of  produc- 
tion and  exchange  owned  and  controlled  by  a  class, 
with  privilege  enthroned  and  opportunity  to  de- 
velop denied  to  the  mass  of  mankind,  there  is  no 
free  choice  for  the  majority  of  citizens.  To  the 
limitations  imposed  upon  individuals  by  nature 
are  added  the  limitations  arising  from  economic  de- 
pendence, including  artificially  arrested  intellectual 
development  and  all  that  it  implies.  Under  such 
conditions,  the  law  of  supply  and  demand  is  simply 
a  blind  force  which  adds  to  the  oppression  of  the 
workers  and  to  the  confusion  and  chaos  of  our 
economic  chance-world. 

Finally,  we  must  consider  briefly  the  medium  of 
distribution,  money.  Through  the  whole  fabric 
of  our  Socialist  literature  there  runs  the  thread  of 
open  hostility  to  money  as  a  medium  of  distribu- 
tion. From  the  angry  outbursts  against  the  "  yel- 
low relic  of  barbarism,"  and  the  energy  and  In- 
genuity expended  In  devising  substitutes  for  money, 
we  might  almost  conclude  that  Socialism  depends 
upon  a  revision  of  the  well-known  and  oft-quoted 
Pauline  dictum  to  read  "  money  Is  the  root  of  all 
evil."     Babeuf's    equal    distribution    of    concrete 


198  Applied  Socialism 

consumption  goods,  Owen's  "  Equitable  Labor  Ex- 
change Banks,"  the  elaborate  and  ingenious  system 
of  labor  certificates  devised  by  Rodbertus,  the 
credit  cards  of  Bellamy  and  the  store  checks  of 
Edmond  Kelly,  all  indicate  a  profound  conviction 
that  money  must  be  abolished  by  the  Socialist 
State. 

It  is  easy  enough  to  understand  the  belief  of  the 
old  Utopian  Socialists  to  whom  Soclahsm  meant 
absolute  equality,  that  money  must  be  ruled  out  of 
the  Socialist  commonwealth.  It  is  not  easy,  how- 
ever, to  understand  the  prevalence  of  that  belief 
among  Socialists  of  the  modern  school,  except  as  an 
Inherited  tradition  to  which  they  cling  with  the 
proverbial  conservatism  of  reformers  and  radicals. 
There  Is  no  reason  why  collective  ownership  and 
democratic  control  of  production  and  exchange 
should  be  made  dependent  upon  the  substitution 
of  some  other  circulating  medium  for  money.  It 
is  true  that  In  his  polemic  against  Duhring,  Engels 
argued  that  the  retention  of  money  In  Diihring's 
Utopia  was  a  fatal  defect,  that  money  must  lead 
to  "  the  resurrection  of  high  finance."  ^  He  con- 
siders money  with  all  the  functions  It  possesses  in 
capitalist  society.  Thrift  upon  the  one  hand  and 
extravagance  upon  the  other  would  lead  to  usury 
and,  therefore,  to  enormous  Inequality  and  explol- 

1  F.   Engels,   Landmarks   of  Scientific  Socialism    (Anti-Diihr- 
ing),  translated  by  Austin  Lewis,  pp.  248-250. 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         199 

tatlon.  Curiously  enough,  he  does  not  consider  the 
possibility  of  the  State  so  thoroughly  monopolizing 
the  credit  functions  as  to  make  it  impossible  for 
private  usury  to  exist  to  any  considerable  extent. 
Yet  it  Is  obvious  that  a  Socialist  State  could  loan 
money  to  its  members  at  a  rate  of  interest  so  nomi- 
nal and  inconsiderable  that  the  extent  of  exploita- 
tion through  private  usury  would  necessarily  be- 
come incidental  and  insignificant.  Moreover,  an 
effective  and  economical  system  of  insurance 
against  loss  through  the  exercise  of  this  function 
would  be*  possible  for  the  State. 

The  position  of  Kautsky  upon  this  question  is 
entirely  consistent  with  the  Socialist  philosophy. 
Indeed,  it  might  with  reason  be  claimed  for  it, 
that  it  Is  the  only  position  which  is  wholly  justi- 
fied by  the  evolutionary  philosophy  of  Socialism, 
Money  Is  a  creature  of  private  property.  Not 
until  the  rise  of  private  property  as  a  dominant  so- 
cial institution  was  a  monetary  system  necessary. 
Should  private  property  disappear  and  Its  place 
be  taken  by  pure  Communism,  money  will  also 
disappear.  But  Socialism  Is  not  Communism :  it 
does  not  aim  at  the  abolition  of  private  property. 
It  is  by  no  means  certain,  therefore,  that  money 
will  be  abolished.  It  may  well  be  that  the  con- 
tinuance of  that  degree  of  private  property  which 
Is  compatible  with  Socialism,  and  an  essential  fea- 
ture of  It,  will  Involve  the  continuance  of  money, 


200  Applied  Socialism 

even  though  some  of  its  present  functions  may  be 
modified  or  entirely  abolished. 

In  the  British  Museum  one  may  see  arranged  In 
periods  on  a  series  of  boards  the  gold  and  silver 
coins  of  all  ages.  These  collections  bear  interest- 
ing testimony  to  the  fact  that  all  civilized  nations 
have  experienced  the  need  of  some  convenient 
mediums  for  the  expression  of  value  in  terms  of 
price,  and  have  with  notable  uniformity  developed 
monetary  systems  based  upon  the  precious  metals.^ 
Now,  just  as  it  Is  exceedingly  unlikely  that  the 
Socialist  State  will  be  able  to  abolish  the  wage 
form  of  payment  for  labor,  though  It  may  outgrow 
it,  so,  from  the  evolutionary  point  of  view  it  seems 
unlikely  that  it  will  be  able  to  abolish  money, 
though  it  may  outgrow  It. 

This  is  the  view  of  Kautsky:  "  Money  Is  the 
simplest  means  known  up  to  the  present  time 
which  makes  It  possible  In  as  complicated  a 
mechanism  as  that  of  the  modern  productive  proc- 
ess, with  its  tremendous  far-reaching  divisions  of 
labor,  to  secure  the  circulation  of  products  and 
their  distribution  to  the  members  of  society.  It 
is  the  means  which  makes  it  possible  for  each  one 
to  satisfy  his  necessities  according  to  his  Individual 
Inclination  (to  be  sure  within  the  bounds  of  his 
economic  power).     As  a  means  to  such  circulation 

1  Robert   Barclay,   Disturbance   in   the  Standard   of   Value, 
Ch.  I. 


Labor  and  Its  Remuneration         201 

money  will  be  found  indispensable  until  something 
better  is  discovered.  To  be  sure  many  of  its  func- 
tions, especially  that  of  the  measure  of  value,  will 
disappear,  at  least  in  internal  commerce."  ^ 
Money  thus  becomes  practically  "  token  money," 
and  in  place  of  the  regulation  of  production  by  the 
exchange  of  money  values  it  will  be  possible  for 
society  to  evolve  a  method  of  conscious  social  regu- 
lation. The  important  point  to  be  remembered 
is  that  the  Socialist  State  will  take  that  which 
capitalist  society  has  developed  and,  in  the  light 
of  experience,  gradually  transform  it. 

1  Karl  Kautsky,  The  Social  Revolution,  p.  129.     (The  Italics 
are  mine.     J.  S.) 


VIII 

INCENTIVL    UNDER    SOCIALISM 
I 

CLOSELY  allied  to  the  question  of  the  re- 
muneration of  labor,  but  more  far-reach- 
ing, Is  the  question  of  incentive.  Terrible 
prophecies  are  made  concerning  the  Socialist 
regime  by  the  enemies  of  Socialism.  We  are 
solemnly  assured  that  at  best  the  Socialist  State 
can  only  permit  a  "  common  level  of  achievement," 
that  in  ordinary  productive  labor  the  motives  to 
exertion  will  be  impaired  and  progress  retarded. 
The  volume  of  production  will  be  lessened,  and, 
therefore,  the  standard  of  comfort  will  be  lower 
than  to-day,  at  least  so  far  as  the  efficient  producers 
are  concerned. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  larger  aspects  of  the 
question,  the  incentive  to  genius,  let  us  examine 
the  question  in  its  simpler  aspects,  its  bearing  upon 
ordinary  economic  production.  The  dire  predic- 
tion that  the  motives  to  exertion  will  be  so  im- 
paired as  to  lessen  the  volume  of  production  rests 
upon  the  twin  assumptions  that  the  Socialist  State 

202 


Incentive   Under  Socialism  203 

must  reward  equally  the  lazy  and  the  industrious, 
the  efficient  worker  and  the  Inefficient  worker,  and 
that  human  nature  Is  so  selfish  and  unsocial  that 
under  such  conditions  the  laborers  would  shirk 
their  duty.  The  whole  argument  Is  very  clearly 
and  forcibly  stated  by  Mr.  John  Rae  In  the  fol- 
lowing words : 

"What  is  the  ideal  of  the  working  class?  It  may  be  said 
to  be  that  they  shall  share  pari  passu  in  the  progressive  con- 
quests of  civilization,  and  grow  in  comfort  and  refinement  of 
life  as  other  classes  of  the  community  have  done.  Now  this 
involves  two  things  —  first,  progress;  second,  diffusion  of  prog- 
ress; and  Socialism  is  so  intent  on  the  second  that  it  fails  to 
see  how  completely  it  would  cut  the  springs  of  the  first.  Some 
of  its  adherents  do  assert  that  production  would  be  increased 
and  progress  accelerated  under  a  socialistic  economy,  but  they 
offer  nothing  in  support  of  the  assertion,  and  certainly  our  past 
experience  of  human  nature  would  lead  us  to  expect  precisely 
the  opposite  result.  The  incentives  and  energy  of  production 
would  be  relaxed.  I  have  already  spoken  of  the  loss  that 
would  probably  be  sustained  in  exchanging  the  interested  zeal 
and  keen  eye  of  the  responsible  capitalist  employer  for  the 
perfunctory  administration  of  a  state  officer.  A  like  loss  would 
be  suffered  from  lightening  the  responsibility  of  the  laborers 
and  lessening  their  power  of  acquisition.  Under  a  Socialist 
regime  they  cannot  by  any  merit  acquire  more  property  than 
they  enjoy  in  daily  use,  and  they  cannot  by  any  fault  fail  to 
possess  that.  Now,  Socialist  laborers  are  not  supposed,  any 
more  than  Socialist  officials,  to  be  angels  from  heaven;  they  are 
to  carry  on  the  work  of  society  with  the  ordinary  human  nature 
which  we  at  present  possess;  and  in  circumstances  like  those 
just  described,  unstirred  either  by  hope  or  fear,  our  ordinary 
human  nature  would  undoubtedly  take  its  ease  and  bask  con- 
tentedly in  the  kind  providence  of  the  State  which  relieved  it 
of   all    necessity   of   taking   thought  or   pains.     The   inevitable 


204  Applied  Socialism 

result  would  be  a  great  diminution  of  production,  which, 
with  a  rapidly  increasing  population  (and  Socialism  generally 
scouts  the  idea  of  restraining  it),  would  soon  prove  seriously 
embarrassing,  and  could  only  be  obviated  by  a  resort  to  the 
lash;  in  a  word,  by  a  return  to  industrial  slavery.  Now,  with 
a  lessening  production,  progress  is  clearly  impossible,  and  the 
more  evenly  the  produce  ivas  distributed,  the  more  certain 
ivould  be  the  general  decline."  ^ 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  entire  argument  is 
pivoted  upon  the  assumption  that  the  Socialist 
State  must  establish  a  uniform  reward  for  all  kinds 
of  labor,  paying  as  much  to  the  laziest  producers 
as  to  the  most  industrious.  We  are  assured  that 
no  amount  of  merit  can  increase,  and  no  fault  les- 
sen, the  income  to  which  the  worker  will  be  en- 
titled. Now,  even  if  we  grant  the  contention 
which  Mr.  Rae  bases  upon  this  assumption,  the 
case  for  Socialism  is  not  affected  in  the  slightest 
degree.  The  argument  has  no  bearing  upon  So- 
cialism. It  may  or  may  not  be  valid  against  Com- 
munism, to  which  it  relates,  but  with  Socialism  it 
has  nothing  to  do. 

Socialism,  considered  objectively,  means  simply 
the  collective  ownership  and  democratic  manage- 
ment of  the  means  of  production,  distribution  and 
exchange  to  the  extent  which  may  be  necessary  to 
prevent  the  exploitation  of  the  producers  by  non- 
producers  owning  and  controlling  the  means  of  pro- 

iJoHN  Rae,  Contemporary  Socialism,  3rd  edition,   (1901),  p. 
333.     (Italics  mine.     J.  S.) 


Incentive  Under  Socialism  205 

duction.  There  is  nothing  involved  in  that  prin- 
ciple which  necessarily  precludes  the  payment  of 
special  rewards  for  special  services;  nothing  which 
precludes  the  establishment  by  society  of  a  mini- 
mum standard  of  efficiency  and  accomplishment  in 
every  occupation;  nothing  which  precludes  the  pos- 
sibility of  Imposing  heavy  penalties  upon  those  who 
fail  to  attain  the  required  standard  of  efficiency 
and  attainment. 

There  is  no  incentive  known  to  capitalist  so- 
ciety, no  force  impelling  men  to  labor  with  dili- 
gence, of  which  the  Socialist  State  may  not  avail 
itself  if  it  so  desires.  Payments  based  upon  units 
of  result  rather  than  upon  units  of  time  consumed 
and  prizes  for  exceptional  work  will  not  be  im- 
possible regulations  should  they  be  found  neces- 
sary. Even  the  penalty  of  hunger,  which  capital- 
ism inflicts  upon  workless  proletarians  when  they 
have  sought  work  with  eager  desire,  will  be  avail- 
able as  a  penalty  to  be  inflicted  upon  those  who  re- 
fuse to  work,  if  any  such  there  be.  At  the  very 
worst,  then,  a  Socialist  society  would  be  able  to 
avail  itself  of  every  form  of  incentive  which  capital- 
ism has  ever  enjoyed.  That  the  incentives  we 
have  named  will  not  be  necessary  It  Is  our  privilege 
to  believe.  It  is  enough  that  we  concede  to  our 
opponents  that  they  may  be  found  necessary,  and 
point  to  the  fact  that  in  that  event  they  will  be 
available. 


2o6  Applied  Socialism 

It  may  be  contended,  however,  that  the  objec- 
tion still  retains  a  certain  and  not  inconsiderable 
validity  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  we  admit  that 
Socialism  tends  toward  the  Communist  ideal  of 
equal  remuneration.  Admitting  that  Seattle  is 
nearer  Alaska  than  Chicago  is,  it  does  not  follow 
that  objections  which  may  be  perfectly  valid 
against  a  proposition  to  go  to  Alaska  are  valid 
against  a  proposition  to  go  to  Seattle.  We  will 
not  take  refuge  In  this  analogy,  however,  but 
frankly  face  the  argument.  The  defense  of  Com- 
munism does  not  devolve  upon  us,  but,  so  far  as  the 
problem  of  efficient  Incentive  Is  concerned,  that 
would  be  an  easy  task  as  compared  with  the  de- 
fense of  capitalism. 

It  is  upon  the  alleged  limitations  of  "  human  na- 
ture "  that  a  priori  condenmation  of  the  Commun- 
ist Ideal  rests.  It  Is  a  remarkable  fact  that  all 
those  critics  who  reason  after  the  fashion  of  Mr. 
Rae,  no  matter  how  loudly  they  declare  themselves 
to  be  evolutionists,  completely  ignore  the  evolu- 
tionary view  point  when  they  discuss  "  human  na- 
ture." With  a  degree  of  unanimity  that  is  as 
significant  as  It  Is  striking,  they  all  regard  "  human 
nature  "  as  something  fixed  and  unchanging;  some- 
thing which  Is  not  materially  Influenced  by  en- 
vironment or  by  the  general  progress  of  mankind. 
According  to  this  view,  certain  qualities  and  in- 
stincts predominate  In  human  life  in  every  age. 


Incentive  Under  Socialism  207 

and  are  not  capable  of  development,  control  or 
suppression.  "  Human  nature  is  unchanging,"  we 
are  told. 

The  Socialist  accepts  the  opposite  view  of  evo- 
lution. That  which  is  vaguely  called  "  human 
nature  "  is  nothing  more  than  the  fundamental  in- 
stinct of  self-preservation  which  man  enjoys  in 
common  with  the  lower  animals.  To  that  extent 
it  is  true  that  human  nature  is  selfish.  But  in  its 
expression  it  varies  greatly  according  to  environ- 
mental conditions,  education,  intellectual  and 
moral  development,  and  so  on.  Watch  the  fierce 
struggle  that  goes  on  when  food  is  brought  to  a 
starving  mob  and  each  heart  is  filled  with  the  fear 
that  there  will  not  be  enough  to  go  around. 
Under  such  conditions  men  and  women  will  fight 
as  beasts  fight,  and  their  selfishness  will  lead  them 
to  brutal  frenzy.  But  watch  a  crowd  of  men  and 
women  in  a  fashionable  hotel,  where  there  is  an 
assurance  of  plenty  for  aU.  Under  such  condi- 
tions men  and  women  will  be  exceedingly  courteous 
and  gentle  toward  each  other,  and  find  self-satisfac- 
tion in  their  courtesy  and  gentleness.  Shall  we  say 
that  their  selfishness  is  less  than  that  of  the  hungry 
men  and  women  of  the  mob?  Or  shall  we  not 
rather  say  that  their  selfishness,  their  self-interested 
conduct,  is  upon  a  higher  plane,  the  plane  of  their 
superior  environment? 

In  either  case,  the  argument  of  the  opponents  of 


2o8  'Applied  Socialism 

Socialism  suffers.  If  we  admit  that  selfishness  is 
lessened  in  proportion  to  the  degree  to  which  want 
and  the  fear  of  want  are  removed,  we  may  well 
hope  that  the  brutal  selfishness  which  has  char- 
acterized the  competitive  era  will  disappear  when 
Communism  gives  equal  assurance  to  all.  If  we 
reject  this  view,  and  hold  that  selfishness  is  not 
lessened,  but  raised  to  higher  or  lower  planes  in 
response  to  environmental  changes,  we  may  well 
hope  that  the  conquest  of  the  forces  of  nature  and 
abundant  production,  together  with  a  socialization 
of  cultural  opportunities,  will  result  in  the  eleva- 
tion of  selfishness  to  that  plane  at  which  each  finds 
self-satisfaction  and  self-gratification  in  the  com- 
mon good.  Take  the  first  view,  and  you  admit  the 
possibility  of  eliminating  selfishness.  Take  the 
second  view,  and  you  admit  the  possibility  of  rais- 
ing selfishness  from  vicious  to  virtuous  levels,  and 
of  attaining  ultimately  the  generous  ideal  of 
Cicero:  "That  the  Interest  of  each  individually, 
and  of  all  collectively,  should  be  the  same." 

If  Communism  ever  comes  to  pass  it  will  be  the 
result  of  the  free  choice  of  an  effective  majority 
of  the  people,  and  not  the  result  of  force,  the  will 
of  a  ruling  majority  imposed  upon  the  majority. 
We  cannot  imagine  the  voluntary  adoption  of  such 
a  system  by  the  people  so  long  as  they  recognize 
the  existence  of  an  active  antagonism  of  individual 
and  collective  interests.     Until  the  forms  of  selfish- 


Incentive  Under  Socialism  209 

ness  which  are  anti-soclal,  and  which  cause  men 
to  distrust  each  other  and  to  believe  that  the  aver- 
age individual  will  place  his  own  interest  above 
that  of  the  whole  community  and  evade  his  share 
of  the  work  are  outgrown,  we  cannot  conceive  of 
the  adoption  of  Communism.  In  other  words,  so 
long  as  "  our  ordinary  human  nature  "  is  so  im- 
perfect as  to  make  Communism  inexpedient,  its 
very  imperfectness  will  prevent  the  adoption  of 
Communism.  If  ever  mankind  voluntarily  abol- 
ishes private  property  and  adopts  Communism  in 
production  and  consumption  goods,  it  will  be  be- 
cause human  nature  has  developed  the  capacity 
for  Communism.  Why,  then,  should  we  of  to-day 
conjure  visions  of  failure  from  the  remote  future 
in  our  discussions  of  to-day's  needs  and  problems? 
Mais,  revenons  a  nos  moutons!  We  are  not 
here  and  now  concerned  with  Communism  and  its 
problems,  but  with  Socialism  and  its  problems. 
*'  Make  common  property  of  the  principal  means 
of  production  and  place  them  under  democratic 
management,  and  you  lessen  efficient  incentive," 
we  are  told.  This  conclusion  is  reached  from  the 
premise  that  collective  production  for  the  collective 
benefit  will  not  call  forth  the  maximum  of  individ- 
ual effort  as  individual  production  for  the  direct 
benefit  of  the  individual  does.  We  might  very 
well  grant  the  premise  without  admitting  the  con- 
clusion.    The  indisputable   fact  is  that,   as  John 


2IO  Applied  Socialism 

Stuart  Mill  long  ago  pointed  out,  only  a  very  small 
part  of  the  production  of  civilized  nations  is  now 
carried  on  by  individual  producers  for  their  own 
benefit.  '  Nearly  all  of  the  work  of  modern  so- 
ciety is  done  for  wages  or  salaries,  and  by  far  the 
greater  part  of  production  is  carried  on  by  col- 
lective labor.  Mill  wrote  more  than  sixty  years 
ago,  answering  the  objection  as  applied  to  Com- 
munism in  production  and  consumption  goods,  but 
his  argument  is  equally  valid  to-day  against  the 
objection  as  applied  to  Socialism. 

"The  objection  supposes  that  honest  and  efficient  labor  is 
only  to  be  had  from  those  who  are  themselves  individually  to 
reap  the  benefit  of  their  own  exertions.  But  how  small  a  part 
of  all  the  labor  performed  in  England,  from  the  lowest  paid  to 
the  highest  is  done  by  persons  working  for  their  own  benefit. 
From  the  Irish  reaper  or  hodman  to  the  chief  justice  or  the 
minister  of  state,  nearly  all  the  work  of  society  is  remuner- 
ated by  day  wages  or  fixed  salaries.  A  factory  operative  has 
less  personal  interest  in  his  work  than  a  member  of  a  Com- 
munist association,  since  he  is  not,  like  him,  working  for  a 
partnership  of  which  he  is  himself  a  member.  ...  I  am  not 
undervaluing  the  strength  of  the  incitement  given  to  labor 
when  the  whole  or  a  large  share  of  the  benefit  of  extra  exertion 
belongs  to  the  laborer.  But  under  the  present  system  of  indus- 
try this  incitement,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  does  not  exist. 
If  Communistic  labor  might  be  less  vigorous  than  that  of  a 
peasant  proprietor,  or  a  workman. laboring  on  his  own  account, 
it  would  probably  be  more  energetic  than  that  of  a  laborer  for 
hire,  who  has  no  personal  interest  in  the  matter  at  all.  The 
neglect  of  the  uneducated  classes  of  laborers  for  hire,  of  the 
duties  which  they  engage  to  perform,  is,  in  the  present  state 
of  society,  most  flagrant.  Now  it  is  an  admitted  condition  of 
the    Communist   scheme   that    all    shall    be    educated,    and   this 


Incentive  Under  Socialism  211 

being  supposed,  the  duties  of  the  members  of  the  association 
would  doubtless  be  as  diligently  performed  as  those  of  the 
generality  of  salaried  officers  in  the  middle  or  higher  classes 
who  are  not  supposed  to  be  necessarily  unfaithful  to  their  trust, 
because  so  long  as  they  are  not  dismissed,  their  pay  is  the 
same  in  however  lax  a  manner  their  duty  is  fulfilled.  Un- 
doubtedly, as  a  general  rule,  remuneration  by  fixed  salaries 
does  not  in  any  class  of  functionaries  produce  the  maximum  of 
zeal ;  and  this  is  as  much  as  can  be  reasonably  alleged  against 
Communistic  labor.^ 

Mill's  Statement  is  admirable  and  quite  unan- 
swerable. Even  if  we  grant  to  our  opponents 
their  contention  that  collective  labor  does  not  of- 
fer the  individual  the  incentive  to  exert  himself 
to  the  full  extent  of  his  powers  which  is  provided 
by  individual  labor  for  the  direct  benefit  of  the 
laborer,  their  case  is  not  strengthened,  neither  Is 
our  case  weakened.  The  objection  they  make 
against  Socialism  Is  quite  as  valid  against  the  pres- 
ent system,  for  only  an  insignificant  part  of  the 
productive  labor  of  the  modern  world  is  performed 
by  Individuals  working  for  their  own  benefit. 

We  may  well  go  further  than  this,  and  say  that 
the  objection  must  of  necessity  possess  the  greater 
force  when  directed  against  the  existing  capitalist 
system.  The  average  wage-laborer  has  not  the 
incentive  of  working  for  his  own  gain.  He  knows 
that  any  extra  exertion  upon  his  part  will  only  in- 
crease the  gain  of  others.     His  interest,  therefore, 

1  John  Stuart  Mill,  Principles  of  Political  Economy,  Third 
Edition,  Book  II,  Chap.  I. 


212  Applied  Socialism 

is  to  do  the  smallest  amount  of  work  which  the  em- 
ployer can  be  forced  to  accept.  As  Adam  Smith 
long  ago  pointed  out  in  the  Wealth  of  Nations,^ 
there  is  an  antagonism  of  interest  between  the 
worker  and  the  employer  in  consequence  of  this 
condition.  To  a  very  considerable  extent  this  has 
been  recognized  by  our  critics,  and  schemes  of 
profit-sharing  have  been  devised  to  increase  the  in- 
centive of  the  laborers.  Thus  Professor  Gilman 
bases  his  advocacy  of  profit-sharing  upon  the  fact 
that,  "  the  wage-system,  viewed  in  its  simplest 
form  of  time-wages,  does  not  supply  the  necessary 
motives  for  the  workman  to  do  his  best."  ^ 

With  that  curious  illogicality  which  character- 
izes so  much  of  his  writing  upon  questions  of  in- 
dustrial economy,  that  canny  Scot,  Mr.  Andrew 
Carnegie,  declares  himself  to  be  an  Individualist 
and  bitterly  opposes  Socialism,  while  at  the  same 
time  he  urges  the  need  of  profit-sharing  to  increase 
the  incentive  to  labor,  going  even  to  the  limit  of 
advocating  the  abolition  of  the  wage-system.  He 
quotes  with  approval  John  Stuart  Mill's  declara- 
tion that,  "  The  form  of  association,  however, 
which,  if  mankind  continue  to  improve,  must  be  ex- 
pected in  the  end  to  predominate,  is  not  that  which 
can  exist  between  a  capitalist  as  chief  and  work- 

1  Bk.  I,  Chap.  VIII. 

-  N.  P.  Gilman,  Profit  Sharing,  p.  62. 


Incentive   Under  Socialism  213 

people  without  a  voice  in  the  management,  but  the 
association  of  the  laborers  themselves  on  terms  of 
equality,  collectively  owning  the  capital  with  which 
they  carry  on  their  operations,  and  working  under 
managers  elected  and  removable  by  themselves." 
He  Is  "  convinced  that  this  Is  to  be  the  highly  sat- 
isfactory and  final  solution."  ^ 

No  attempt  has  been  made  to  explain  why  the 
logical  extension  of  the  profit-sharing  method  of 
Increasing  Incentive,  to  the  extent  of  making  the 
producers  equal  partners  In  production  and  distri- 
bution, should  destroy  incentive.  Keeping  upon 
the  ground  of  self-interest  which  our  critics  have 
chosen,  It  would  appear  to  be  almost  axiomatic 
that  a  thousand  men  working  at  fixed  wages  for  a 
great  corporation,  and  knowing  that  some  non- 
producers  expect  to  derive  a  profit  as  a  result  of 
their  labor,  are  far  less  likely  to  exert  themselves 
to  the  maximum  of  their  capacity  than  they  would 
be  If  all  the  benefits  of  such  extra  exertions  as  they 
might  make  were  to  become  their  property,  to  be 
distributed  In  accordance  with  their  common 
agreement.  In  actual  practice  this  has  been  demon- 
strated times  without  number.  The  sloth  and  in- 
difference of  the  average  day  laborer  and  the  dill- 

1  Cf.  Andrew  Carnegie,  Problems  of  To-Day,  pp.  51-82. 
The   passage   quoted   is   from   Mill's   Principles    of   Political 
Economy,  People's  Edition,  p.  465. 


214  Applied  Socialism 

gence  of  the  workers  in  cooperative  workshops 
is  a  famihar  contrast. 

It  may  be  said  that  we  have  overlooked  the  Im- 
portant fact  that  capitahst  society  provides  a  force 
which  tends  to  increase  the  productivity  of  labor, 
which  would  not  be  possible  in  the  Socialist  State, 
namely,  the  vigilance  of  superintendence  by  the 
employer.  But,  here,  also,  we  are  confronted  by 
the  fact  that  this  has  become  the  function  of  a 
salaried  class.  If  the  advantages  of  good  salaries 
and  responsible  and  authoritative  positions  are  suf- 
ficiently powerful  Incentives  to  Induce  men  with  a 
talent  and  capacity  for  directing  labor  to  stimulate 
those  whose  labor  they  direct  to  exert  themselves 
to  the  uttermost,  why  are  we  to  suppose  that  similar 
incentives  offered  by  the  community  would  fail  to 
Induce  at  least  an  equal  effort,  especially  when 
there  would  be  the  added  Incentive  of  an  equal 
share  In  the  benefits  resulting  from  the  Increase 
of  production?  To-day,  as  a  result  of  the  in- 
stinctive recognition  of  the  separation  of  class  in- 
terests, there  exists  a  sort  of  freemasonry  of  the 
workers.  The  rapid  worker  is  always  unpopular 
among  his  fellow  workers;  the  slothful  worker 
who  Is  constantly  malingering  and  idling  away  his 
time  has  only  the  superintendent  to  fear.  Is  it 
not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  sense  of  social 
loss  which  such  conduct  must  Incur  would  supple- 
ment the  forces  deterring  It,  that.  In  the  words  of 


Incentive  Under  Socialism  215 

MIll,^  "  It  must  be  remembered  that  in  a  Socialist 
farm  or  manufactory,  each  laborer  would  be  under 
the  eye  not  of  one  master,  but  of  the  whole  com- 
munity "  ? 

There  is  a  widespread  belief  that  laborers  in  the 
employ  of  the  public  do  not  labor  with  the  assi- 
duity and  efficiency  of  laborers  employed  in  ordi- 
nary industrial  establishments.  From  this  fact  —  if 
fact  it  be  —  the  inference  is  drawn  that  private 
employers  can  command  more  efficient  and  indus- 
trious service  than  the  Socialist  State  could  com- 
mand, even  though  the  latter  offered  the  incentive 
of  a  participation  by  the  individual  producer  as  a 
citizen  in  the  social  gain  from  increased  produc- 
tion, an  Incentive  the  former  does  not  offer.  This 
argument  comes  nearer  than  any  other  offered  by 
our  opponents  to  being  an  appeal  to  fact.  Let  us, 
then,  pay  it  the  attention  it  deserves. 

As  to  the  fact  itself  we  are  by  no  means  certain. 
No  conclusive  study  of  the  subject  seems  ever  to 
have  been  made.  We  are,  to  a  large  extent,  de- 
pendent upon  that  most  unreliable  of  all  authori- 
ties, general  observation.  Laborers  In  our  public 
parks,  for  example,  are  seen  to  be  working  very 
leisurely,  or  even  loafing  In  obscure  corners.  The 
average  taxpayer,  just  because  he  feels  that  to 
some  vague  degree  he  Is  one  of  the  employers  of 

iJOHN  Stuart  Mill,  Principles  of  Political  Economy,  Third 
Edition,  B.  II,  Ch.  I. 


2i6  Applied  Socialism 

these  laborers,  and  a  victim  of  their  idleness,  spe- 
cially observes  what,  had  the  men  been  laborers 
on  a  private  estate,  he  would  not  have  observed 
at  all.  It  may  be  very  much  doubted  whether, 
having  regard  both  to  the  quantity  and  the  quality 
of  the  work  done,  public  employment  would  suf- 
fer by  comparison  with  private  employment. 

A  bricklayer  employed  by  a  speculative  builder 
whose  aim  is  to  get  as  much  profit  as  possible, 
and  who  will  be  content  with  the  poorest  work 
which  can  be  disposed  of,  will  lay  more  bricks  per 
hour  than  one  employed  by  a  public  authority 
whose  principal  aim  is  to  get  good  work.  We 
might  cite  a  hundred  illustrations  of  this  principle. 
It  is  a  significant  fact  that  the  great  English  mu- 
nicipalities have  been  able  to  compete  successfully 
with  the  private  contractor.  The  London  County 
Council,  for  example,  has  repeatedly  demonstrated 
that  great  undertakings  can  be  carried  out  by  the 
public  bodies  at  a  less  cost  than  the  lowest  bid  by 
a  private  contractor,  even  though  higher  wages 
are  paid  than  by  private  contractors  and  a  better 
class  of  work  secured.  Likewise,  in  Washington, 
D.  C,  some  years  ago,  an  exhaustive  test  showed 
that  direct  employment  was  a  far  cheaper  method 
of  street  cleaning  than  the  contract  system.  Even 
though  the  street-cleaning  department  paid  its 
laborers  twenty-five  per  cent,  higher  wages  than 
the  contractors  paid,  the  cost  per  thousand  yards 


Incentive   Under  Socialism  217 

was  only  eighteen  cents  as  against  thirty-two  cents 
under  the  contract  system,  a  difference  of  eighty 
per  cent.^ 

The  success  of  the  United  States  Government  in 
that  greatest  engineering  task  of  modern  times, 
the  Panama  Canal,  is  another  illustration  of  the 
power  of  collective  authorities  to  secure  as  good 
results  as  the  most  efficient  capitalist  employers. 

But  even  if  this  were  not  the  case,  if  it  could  be 
demonstrated  that,  as  a  rule,  public  employment 
does  not  call  forth  the  same  degree  of  industry 
and  efficiency  on  the  part  of  the  laborers  that  pri- 
vate employment  does,  it  would  be  foolish  to  infer 
from  that  fact  that  the  Socialist  State  must  fail  to 
command  as  efficient  and  industrious  service  as 
capitalist  employers  do.  The  fallacy  is  obvious. 
To-day  capitalist  industry  is  predominant.  It 
commands  the  genius  of  administration,  and  direc- 
tion to  a  very  large  extent  because  the  State,  while 
it  retains  its  present  character  and  keeps  out  of 
industrial  enterprise  as  far  as  possible.  Is  not 
and  cannot  be  a  competitor.  Does  any  one  pro- 
fess to  believe  that  If  the  State  adopted  a  new 
policy  and  entered  Into  competition  with  the 
capitalists  It  could  not  secure  Its  full  share  of  that 
genius? 

We   may   at   this   point   conveniently   and   ad- 

1  Report  of  the  Superintendent  of  the  Street  Cleaning  Depart- 
ment of  the  District  of  Columbia,  Sept.  20,  1899. 


2i8  Applied  Socialism 

vantageously  summarize  our  discussion  of  the 
objection  that  the  volume  of  ordinary  economic  pro- 
duction will  be  seriously  lessened  because  of  the  im- 
pairment of  the  incentive  to  labor.  We  have  seen 
that  the  objection  is  based  upon  the  erroneous  as- 
sumption that  Socialism  involves  equal  remunera- 
tion of  all,  regardless  of  the  service  performed. 
This,  however,  is  not  Socialism  but  Communism. 
There  is  no  reason  why  the  Socialist  State  should 
not  avail  itself  of  every  incentive  which  operates 
to-day.  It  can  give  special  rewards  for  special 
services,  and  it  can  force  the  lazy  man  to  labor. 
Whatever  strength  the  objection  has  when  applied 
to  Socialism  is  increased  when  applied  to  present 
conditions.  Socialism  simply  adds  new  incentives 
to  those  existing.  Whereas  to-day  the  great  ma- 
jority of  workers  for  an  Individual  employer  or  a 
corporation  Instinctively  realize  that  they  cannot 
Improve  their  position  by  Increasing  their  exertions, 
and  so  rarely  do  more  than  they  are  compelled  to 
do,  the  workers  In  a  cooperative  factory  know  that 
every  Increase  of  production  operates  to  their  mu- 
tual advantage,  and  the  knowledge  stimulates  their 
energies  and  spurs  them  on.  Thus,  the  self-in- 
terest which,  for  the  laborer.  Is  largely  destroyed 
by  capitalist  production,  reappears  In  a  new  form 
In  cooperative  production.  In  this  form  It  would 
be  still  more  developed  under  Socialism.  So  far 
from  anticipating  a  decrease  of  productive   effi- 


Incentive  Under  Socialism  219 

clency  under  Socialism,  we  may  fairly  predict  the 
opposite  result. 

II 

Some  of  our  critics  freely  admit  that  it  would 
not  be  impossible  for  a  Socialist  society  so  to  or- 
ganize its  economic  system  as  to  avoid  lessening 
the  volume  of  production  and  lowering  the  stand- 
ard of  comfort.  But  these  same  critics  urge  that 
it  would  be  found  necessary  to  repress  those  forms 
of  individuality  and  initiative  which  are  essential 
conditions  of  progress.  A  high  degree  of  comfort 
might  be  attained  by  an  effective  organization  of 
the  productive  forces  already  developed  by  capi- 
talism, but  at  the  expense  of  repressing  the  higher 
forms  of  individuality  which  make  growth  possi- 
ble, and  reducing  all  to  a  dead  level  of  mediocrity. 
It  would  stop  the  development  of  art  and  science  in 
all  their  varied  forms,  and,  in  particular,  stifle  the 
inventive  spirit  of  mankind. 

This  objection  also  rests  upon  the  assumption 
that  the  equal  and  uniform  reward  of  all  forms  of 
service  is  a  fundamental  condition  of  Socialism. 
We  need  not  repeat  the  demonstration  of  the  fal- 
lacy of  the  assumption.  We  may,  however,  with 
profit  consider  the  objection  from  another  point 
of  view,  namely,  the  overvaluation  of  the  motive 
of  material  gain  as  an  incentive.  Is  it  true  that 
the  greatest  incentive  to  progress  Is  the  desire  of 


220  Applied  Socialism 

individuals  to  secure  and  enjoy  exceptional  material 
advantages,  to  pile  up  riches?  Put  bluntly,  the 
question  is  whether  greed  is  the  chief  inspiration 
of  progress,  of  humanity's  noblest  achievements  in 
art,  science,  literature,  philosophy,  statecraft  and 
invention. 

We  may  safely  assert  that  there  has  never  been 
another  age  in  all  human  history  in  which  the  desire 
for  material  gain  and  advantage  has  been  as  pow- 
erful as  it  has  been  throughout  the  age  of  capi- 
talism. This  is  not  difficult  to  understand.  Capi- 
talism is  essentially  the  era  of  materialism.  The 
amassing  of  fortune  typifies  success  in  the  dominant 
form  of  human  enterprise.  To  a  very  large  de- 
gree, the  test  of  success  or  failure  in  life  is  the 
amount  of  material  wealth  which  an  individual 
amasses.  Under  these  conditions,  it  is  natural  that 
the  value  of  material  gain  as  an  incentive  should 
be  overemphasized  and  overrated.  Certainly, 
we  are  justified  in  saying  that  this  form  of  incentive 
attains  its  maximum  force  in  capitalist  society. 

But,  even  under  these  conditions,  greed  is  by 
no  means  the  most  powerful  of  the  Incentives  to 
human  effort.  Even  the  man  of  business  who 
keeps  on  piling  up  wealth  long  after  the  point  of 
satiety  has  been  reached,  until,  as  in  the  case  of 
some  of  our  modern  financial  kings,  wealth  becomes 
illth,  as  oppressive  as  the  gold  of  Midas,  is  urged 
on  by  some  other  force  than  the  passion  to  obtain 


Incentive  Under  Socialism  221 

more  of  that  which  he  already  possesses  In  super- 
abundance. Pride  in  achievement,  the  glory  of 
success  In  the  characteristic  struggle  of  the  time 
and  love  of  power  are  the  real  motives  which  are 
masked  by  the  hoarded  wealth.  When  the  point 
of  satiety  is  reached,  all  further  acquisition  is  use- 
less and  burdensome.  After  his  physical  and  In- 
tellectual wants  have  been  supplied,  the  normal 
man  of  business  values  the  money  he  gains  only  as 
the  Olympic  victor  valued  the  laurel  wreath.  It  is 
a  symbol  and  sign  of  victory  In  a  great  contest. 
The  lavish  public  gifts  of  our  multimillionaires 
prove  how  highly  they  value  the  approbation  and 
esteem  of  their  fellow  men  over  mere  money. 

Greed,  the  passion  for  material  gain.  Is  far 
more  powerful  as  an  incentive  to  evil  and  anti- 
social conduct  than  as  an  Incentive  to  great  creative 
work  In  art,  science  or  invention.  As  an  Incentive 
to  crime  and  wrong-doing  It  can  hardly  be  over- 
estimated. It  has  Inspired  the  wars  of  conquest 
and  spoliation  which  have  reddened  the  earth  with 
blood;  It  has  been  the  Incentive  to  murders  and 
thefts  Innumerable ;  It  has  Inspired  those  who  have 
corrupted  our  legislators  and  judges  and  have  de- 
vised schemes  enabling  the  great  corporations  to 
exploit  and  oppress  the  people,  and  to  defeat  the 
laws  enacted  for  the  people's  protection.  Greed 
has  caused  the  adulteration  of  food  for  profit;  the 
building  of  houses  and  factories  which  are  firetraps 


222  Applied  Socialism 

and  fever-dens;  the  prostitution  of  press,  pulpit 
and  class-room  and  the  traffic  in  vice. 

Society  does  not  hesitate  to  repress  the  Incentive 
of  gain  in  these,  its  most  numerous,  manifesta- 
tions. No  matter  how  much  ingenuity  may  be  rep- 
resented by  the  tools  of  the  burglar,  the  weapons 
of  the  highwayman,  or  the  adulterations  of  the 
chemist;  no  matter  how  much  slcill  or  daring  the 
corruption  of  legislatures  and  courts  may  require, 
self-protection  leads  society  to  repress  all  such  man- 
ifestations of  that  incentive  to  gain  which  we  are 
asked  to  worship. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  desire  for  material  gain 
is  not  an  effective  incentive  to  great  achievements 
in  art,  science,  Invention  or  statesmanship.  It  Is 
one  of  the  commonplaces  of  criticism  that  the  aim 
to  make  money  is  fatal  to  art.  So  long  as  Millais 
was  inspired  by  the  artist's  passion  for  self-expres- 
sion his  work  was  noble  and  worthy,  but  when, 
for  the  sake  of  money,  he  turned  to  the  production 
of  soap  advertisements,  his  work  became  pitiful 
and  poor.  So  long  as  Scott  wrote  merely  because 
he  was  overpowered  by  that  master  passion  for 
self-expression,  the  creative  Impulse  which  gives 
birth  to  all  great  and  enduring  art,  he  was  an 
artist  and  his  work  was  In  Its  warp  and  woof 
woven  of  Immortality.  But  when  poverty  and 
debt  compelled  him  to  write  for  money,  he  ceased 
to  be  more  than  an  uninspired  literary  drudge. 


Incentive  Under  Socialism  223 

To  cite  only  one  other  example,  who  among  all 
his  admirers  would  not  gladly  blot  out  of  existence 
the  works  which  Mark  Twain  wrote  under  similar 
pressure? 

If  there  is  one  fact  to  which  the  history  of  the 
intellectual  advance  of  mankind  bears  indisputable 
testimony,  it  is  that  desire  for  material  gain  never 
inspired  the  highest  and  best  work  of  poet  or  pain- 
ter, sculptor  or  prose-writer.  Money  cannot  buy 
the  genius  essential  to  the  making  of  a  great  pic- 
ture like  Leonardo's  dramatic  masterpiece,  "  The 
Last  Supper,"  or  a  piece  of  sculpture  like  Angelo's 
"  Pieta,"  or  a  poem  like  Tennyson's  "  In 
Memoriam."  That  which  made  possible  Shelley's 
"  To  a  Skylark  "  was  not  the  prospect  of  a  good 
sale  for  the  poem,  but  a  passion  for  utterance,  for 
self-expression  akin  to  that  which  forced  the  sky- 
lark itself  to  sing 

"In  profuse  strains  of  unpremeditated  art." 

So  long  as  human  lives  are  bounded  by  birth  and 
death;  so  long  as  love  and  hate,  fear  and  faith, 
reverence  and  wonder,  joy  and  sorrow,  knowledge 
and  mystery  remain  to  human  experience,  so  long 
will  art  endure.  Never  while  these  feelings  and 
emotions  find  lodgment  in  the  human  heart  will 
poets,  painters,  sculptors,  musicians  and  dramatists 
fail  to  find  means  of  expressing  them. 

Far  from  being  the  main  incentive  to  great  art, 


224  Applied  Socialism 

love  of  material  gain  is  art's  deadliest  foe,  as  it  is 
the  foe  of  all  great  individual  genius.  Had  they 
thought  more  of  gaining  wealth  than  of  nobly  ex- 
pressing that  which  burned  within  them,  Richard 
Wagner  would  have  never  composed  his  great 
music-dramas  and  Jean  Frangois  Millet  would 
never  have  painted  his  peasant  figures.  Both  en- 
dured poverty  and  hardship,  to  say  nothing  of 
ridicule  and  persecution.  Each  might  have  found 
wealth  and  ease,  Wagner  by  composing  *'  pretty  " 
music  and  Millet  by  painting  "  pretty  "  pictures, 
but  each  took  the  opposite  road  of  sacrifice,  the 
way  to  immortal  fame. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  whatever  art  the 
modern  world  has  produced  has  been  produced 
despite  the  commercial  spirit  of  greed,  not  be- 
cause of  it.  The  inequalities  of  opportunity  so 
characteristic  of  capitalist  society  have  stifled  an 
incalculable  amount  of  human  genius.  No  man 
can  know  —  no  thoughtful  and  sensitive  mind  dare 
contemplate  —  the  almost  infinite  amount  of  genius 
which  has  been  borne  to  death  and  silence  upon 
the  merciless  tide  of  poverty.  Then,  too,  com- 
mercialism has  perverted  genius,  and  many  a  soul 
with  a  vision  which  in  an  age  less  dominated  by 
the  passion  for  material  gain  would  have  be- 
queathed a  noble  heritage  to  posterity  has  spent 
Itself  in  the  market  place. 


Incentive  Under  Socialism  225 

Perhaps  it  is  the  perception  of  these  things 
which  leads  so  many  poets  and  artists  to  Sociahsm. 
Supreme  individuahsts  in  the  sense  that  for  them 
opportunity  for  self-expression  is  hfe  itself,  they 
easily  perceive  that  which  we  In  our  lower  planes 
of  existence  cannot  always  see,  the  fact  that  indi- 
viduality flourishes  best  under  a  communism  of 
opportunity.  A  society  in  which  privilege  finds 
no  place,  in  which  there  is  neither  stultifying  idle- 
ness nor  deadening  overwork,  in  which  there  is  ma- 
terial comfort  with  healthful  labor  and  ample 
leisure,  is  surely  a  better  soil  for  art,  than  the  so- 
ciety of  to-day !  Shall  we  content  ourselves  with 
the  vain  hypothesis  of  "  coincidence  "  to  explain 
that  during  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  when 
Athens  came  nearest  to  the  fulfillment  of  the  Ideal 
we  have  sketched,  except  for  her  slave  population, 
she  reached  that  zenith  of  culture  and  genius  which 
has  never  been  equaled  in  the  world?  Socrates 
and  Plato  and  Aristotle,  among  philosophers; 
iEschylus  and  Sophocles,  among  dramatists; 
Phidias  and  Praxiteles,  among  sculptors;  Demos- 
thenes and  iEschines,  among  orators;  Pericles  and 
Cimon,  among  statesmen  —  all  these,  and  numer- 
ous other  great  figures  in  Greek  history,  belong 
to  that  period  in  the  life  of  Athens  which  was 
characterized  by  an  elaborate  system  of  public 
ownership  and,   for  all  above  the  slave  class,  a 


226  Applied  Socialism 

communism    of    opportunity   without    parallel    in 
history.* 

We  must  not  forget  that  the  great  art  of  the  past 
was,  as  a  rule,  intended  for  social  enjoyment.  It 
is  sadly  out  of  place  in  the  private  galleries  of  our 
modern  plutocrats  !  Only  rarely  was  a  great  paint- 
ing or  piece  of  sculpture  produced  for  the  selfish 
enjoyment  and  gratification  of  individuals.  The 
highest  art  had  a  social  inspiration  and  purpose. 
Giotto's  glorious  Campanile  and  its  delicately 
carved  bas-reliefs ;  Angelo's  wonderful  paintings  on 
the  ceiling  of  the  Sistine  Chapel  and  his  splendid 
statues  on  the  Medicean  tombs  and  Raphael's 
matchless  cartoons  for  the  Vatican  are  all  illustra- 
tions of  this  important  fact.  As  with  the  great 
cathedrals  —  Notre  Dame  de  Paris,  for  example, 
—  religion,  a  social  force,  was  equally  blended  In 
the  greatest  art  of  all  time. 

It  would  be  verging  upon  charlatanry  to  suggest 
that  Socialism  will  give  the  artist  an  open  and 
easy  way  to  glory  and  immortality.  Doubtless  in 
the  Socialist  society  of  the  future,  as  in  all  past 
ages,  genius  will  strike  out  new  paths  amid  the 
derisive  clamor  of  short-sighted  doubters.  New 
art-forms  will  be  mocked,  assailed,  studied,  praised 
and  reverenced  in  turn.     But  there  will  always  be 

1  See  the  interesting  articles  on  this  subject  by  my  friend, 
Rev.  W.  D.  P.  Bliss,  The  Outlook,  Nov.  ii,  1905,  and  by  Prof. 
T.  D.  Seymour,  in  Harper's  Monthly  Magazine,  Nov.,  1907. 


Incentive   Under  Socialism  227 

a  chance  for  the  artist  to  make  a  living  while  still 
pursuing  the  Holy  Grail  of  art,  a  chance  to  earn 
a  living  by  labor  which  will  leave  leisure  and 
strength  for  art.  Perhaps  this  is  the  Ideal,  this 
union  of  art  and  labor  In  the  same  person.  The 
great  Florentines,  Angelo  and  Leonardo,  were  not 
merely  artists.  In  our  own  generation  William 
Morris  has  shown  that  union  of  craftsman  and 
artist  to  be  possible. 

So  much  for  the  artist  whose  work  wins  no  rec- 
ognition, or  wins  recognition  slowly.  He  will  be 
able  to  earn  his  living  at  some  task  for  which  he 
feels  fitted,  and  In  his  leisure  paint  pictures,  carve 
statues,  compose  music  or  write  poems  to  gratify 
himself,  as  Leonardo  painted  the  "  Gioconda." 
He  will  be  far  better  off  than  such  an  artist  can  be 
to-day,  when  to  earn  a  living  by  labor  means  the 
abandonment  of  art  In  all  but  rare  cases,  because 
the  labor  leaves  neither  leisure  nor  strength  for  art, 
and  when  to  earn  a  living  otherwise  involves  the 
prostitution  of  art. 

The  hope  of  art  lies  in  democracy  and  the 
equalization  of  material  and  cultural  advantages. 
"  Our  inequality  materializes  our  upper  class,  vul- 
garizes our  middle  class,  brutalizes  our  lower 
class,"  cried  Matthew  Arnold.  Sweep  away  this 
Inequality  and  the  instinctive  folk-love  of  beauty 
will  assert  itself  in  a  great  revolt  against  ugliness 
In  life  and  labor,  and  a  demand  for  beautiful  homes 


228  Applied  Socialism 

to  live  In  and  at  least  pleasant  places  to  work  In. 
It  Is  inconceivable  that  once  economic  servitude 
has  been  dispelled,  and  a  communism  of  oppor- 
tunity realized,  the  people  will  be  content  to  live  In 
the  ugly  dens  of  our  cities,  or  to  labor  In  the  cheer- 
less and  gloomy  prison-pens  of  modern  Industry. 
A  social  demand  for  beauty  will  be  developed 
which  will  give  spur  and  opportunity  to  talent  and 
genius. 

The  Instinct  of  the  masses  Is  keener  In  its 
perception  of  art  than  is  generally  recognized, 
far  keener  than  the  educated  "  taste "  of  the 
convention-bound  privileged  classes.  Folk-song 
and  folk-dance,  outpourings  of  the  Instinctive 
sense  of  beauty  of  simple  peasants,  compel  our  ad- 
miration to-day  and  defy  our  efforts  to  surpass 
them  in  grace  and  simple  beauty.  Nor  Is  It  with- 
out significance  that  when  Wagner  in  music,  Ibsen 
In  the  drama,  Whitman  In  poetry.  Millet  In  paint- 
ing and  Meunier  In  sculpture  —  to  name  only  a 
few  of  the  great  moderns  —  were  mocked  and  de- 
rided by  the  critics,  who  reflected  the  standards 
of  conventional  education  and  taste,  they  were 
understood  and  appreciated  by  the  working  peo- 
ple In  America  and  Europe  who  were  consciously 
striving  toward  the  democratic  ideal. 

Without  entering  the  forbidden  land  of  Utopian 
fancy,  there  are  some  things  which  may  be  said 
with  assurance  concerning  art  in  the  Socialist  so- 


Incentive  Under  Socialism  229 

ciety  of  the  future.  The  destruction  of  privilege 
and  inequahty  will  put  an  end  to  the  waste  and  re- 
pression of  genius  by  poverty  and  to  the  degrada- 
tion of  art  by  commercialism.  It  will  stimulate 
art  in  all  its  forms  by  extending  leisure  and  cul- 
tural opportunities  to  millions  of  men  and  women 
to  whom  these  are  now  denied.  The  demand  for 
beautiful  surroundings  will  inevitably  lead  to  the 
elevation  of  the  allied  arts  of  painting,  sculpture 
and  architecture.  So  much  we  may  confidently 
forecast,  for  democracy  triumphant  will  not  social- 
ize the  processes  of  production  and  distribution 
merely,  but  all  the  advantages  which  material 
wealth  now  makes  possible  only  for  the  few.  And 
of  these  the  glories  of  art  are  among  the  greatest 
and  best. 

Just  as  in  the  Middle  Ages  the  services  of  the 
great  artists  were  enlisted  by  royalty  and  the 
Church,  so  the  future  may  see  the  greatest  artists 
enlisted  In  the  collective  service,  great  cities  com- 
peting against  each  other  for  the  honor  of  being 
served  by  the  Angelos,  Titians  and  Raphaels  of 
the  time.  In  place  of  the  patronage  of  the  noble, 
the  masters  of  art  will  depend  upon  the  collective 
pride  and  Interest  In  beauty  of  all  the  citizens. 
Surely,  this  Is  not  a  vain  dream  I  Already,  much 
of  the  most  significant  art  is  produced  in  the  col- 
lective service,  such  as  the  work  of  Edwin  A. 
Abbey  In  the  Boston  library,  of  John  W.  Alexander 


230  Applied  Socialism 

and  Elihu  Vedder  in  the  Congressional  Library 
at  Washington  and  of  George  Grey  Barnard  upon 
the  State  Capitol  of  Pennsylvania. 

Nor  need  we  fear  that  the  inventive  spirit  will 
be  crushed  so  that  men  will  cease  to  invent  new 
devices  and  methods  of  lessening  the  labor  of  pro- 
duction. The  Socialist  State  could,  if  necessary, 
offer  far  greater  material  prizes  as  incentives  to 
invention  than  any  other  form  of  society.  But 
for  the  inventor  no  less  than  for  the  artist  there 
are  other  incentives  far  more  powerful  than  the 
desire  for  material  gain.  First  of  all,  there  is  the 
passion  for  achievement,  the  creative  Impulse, 
which  Is  irrepressible  and  unconquerable.  "  We 
do  not  possess  our  ideas;  we  are  possessed  by 
them,"  says  Heine  somewhere.  This  is  especially 
true  of  Inventors.  When  we  read  of  the  strug- 
gles of  most  of  the  great  inventors  against  ridicule 
and  poverty  it  becomes  evident  that  they  were 
mastered  by  their  Ideas,  and  not  deliberately  seek- 
ing material  gain.  Can  we  contemplate  the  pic- 
ture of  Pallssy,  the  potter,  starving  with  his  wife 
and  little  ones,  burning  his  furniture  In  his  des- 
perate attempt  to  perfect  the  glaze  which  has 
made  his  work  immortal,  and  suppose  that  his  in- 
centive was  a  desire  for  material  gain?  Are  we 
not  rather  compelled  to  recognize  that  he  was 
urged  by  that  mightiest  of  all  forces,  the  creative 
impulse,  and  that  he  could  no  more  help  himself 


Incentive   Under  Socialism  231 

than  the  toy  balloon  caught  in  a  gale?  The  versa- 
tile Morse,  inventor  of  the  telegraph,  deliberately- 
abandoning  his  artistic  career,  struggling  in  pov- 
erty and  debt,  often  lacking  the  necessities  of  life, 
illustrates  the  same  great  fact. 

The  great  inventors,  like  their  unsuccessful 
brethren  who  give  their  lives  to  the  vain  attempt 
to  discover  and  apply  "  perpetual  motion,"  have 
been  inspired  not  so  much  by  the  hope  of  material 
gain  as  by  the  passion  for  achievement,  the  antici- 
pation of  conferring  great  benefits  upon  mankind 
and  of  winning  fame  and  honor  thereby.  For  all 
forms  of  genius,  the  attainment  of  a  great  end, 
love  of  creative  work,  the  desire  to  benefit  man- 
kind, and  the  hope  of  winning  honor  and  glory 
have  been  far  more  powerful  incentives  than  the 
expectation  of  material  reward.  In  a  society  of 
pure  Communism,  Newton,  Faraday,  Ohm, 
Morse,  Edison,  Jenner,  Koch,  and  all  the  rest  of 
the  great  multitude  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for 
the  enlargement  of  "  man's  kingdom  in  the  uni- 
verse," would  have  found  ample  incentive  as  surely 
as  iEschylus,  Praxiteles  and  Pericles  found  in- 
centive in  an  age  which  offered  no  great  money  re- 
wards to  genius. 

So  much  belongs  to  the  primary  stage  of  our 
Socialist  propaganda.  We  must  pass  to  another 
stage  and  discern,  if  possible,  what  tendencies 
there   are   in   modern  social   development  which 


232  Applied  Socialism 

indicate  the  growing  capacity  of  society  as  its 
functions  become  more  and  more  socialized  to  pro- 
vide the  necessary  stimulus  and  opportunity  for 
the  inventor.  Will  invention  be  left  to  the  chances 
of  individual  genius  and  inspiration,  or  will  it  be 
socially  organized?  And  if  it  is  to  be  socially  or- 
ganized what  assurance  have  we  of  the  competence 
of  the  Socialist  State  to  assume  that  function? 

Questions  like  these  bring  us  face  to  face  with 
the  important  and  neglected  fact  that  invention  Is 
much  more  dependent  upon  social  forces,  and 
much  less  dependent  upon  individual  talent,  than 
is  generally  recognized.  The  great  basic  inven- 
tions and  discoveries  were  made  either  under 
tribal  Communism  or  in  a  state  of  society  so  close 
to  tribal  Communism  that  private  property  had 
scarcely  acquired  any  power.  What  would  the 
modern  world  have  been  without  the  wheel,  the 
boat,  the  sail,  the  rudder,  the  lever,  and,  above 
all,  without  fire?  Yet  we  owe  these  and  numer- 
ous other  inventions  upon  which  practically  all 
our  mechanical  appliances  rest  to  primitive  Com- 
munism. Each  age  has  inherited  and  Improved 
upon  the  Inventions  and  discoveries  of  all  the  ages 
before  it. 

Even  those  great  inventions  which  most  strik- 
ingly manifest  individual  genius  cannot  rightly  be 
regarded  as  Individual  productions.  They  are  so- 
cial In  the  truest  sense  of  the  word.     The  indl- 


Incentive   Under  Socialism  233 

vidual  inventor  has  taken  the  crude  invention  of 
one  age,  and,  guided  by  the  experiments  of  others, 
and  by  the  need  which  social  experience  has  re- 
vealed, has  made  improvements  which  other  in- 
ventors, likewise  guided,  have  improved  upon  in 
their  turn.  The  modern  Hoe  printing  press,  for 
example,  represents  not  a  single  invention  by  one 
mind,  but  numberless  inventions  by  inventors 
known  and  unknown,  including  the  unknown  in- 
ventor who  under  primitive  Communism  devel- 
oped the  idea  of  the  wheel  from  the  rolling  log, 
and  the  unknown  barbarian  who  first  smelted 
metal. 

But  spontaneous  and  unsystematized  Individual 
inventive  effort  has  proven  to  be  inadequate,  even 
for  capitalist  production.  It  has  been  discovered 
that  there  is  no  need  for  society  to  depend  upon 
haphazard  invention.  The  fact  has  been  estab- 
lished that  the  faculty  of  inventiveness  is  much 
more  widely  diffused  than  was  formerly  supposed, 
and  the  further  fact  that  it  can  be  trained  and  de- 
veloped has  likewise  been  established.  Invention 
has  been  commercialized.  It  is  now  a  recognized 
profession.  In  connection  with  our  great  manufac- 
turing establishments  well  equipped  laboratories 
are  now  maintained,  some  of  them  employing 
scores  of  men  and  women,  for  the  special  pur- 
pose of  improving  mechanical  appliances,  devising 
new  methods  of  production,  and  so  on. 


234  Applied  Socialism 

Instead  of  Edison  the  Individual  inventor,  we 
now  have  the  great  laboratory  with  its  paid  force 
of  workers  in  which  electrical  problems  are  grap- 
pled with  and  solved.  The  modern  manufacturer 
of  textiles  who  finds  difficulties  in  the  dyeing  of 
certain  fabrics,  for  example,  is  not  dependent  as 
his  predecessor  was  upon  the  chance  discovery  of 
a  solution  by  himself  or  another  to  whom  he  will 
be  compelled  to  pay  royalties  for  the  use  of  the 
process.  If  he  does  not  maintain  an  experimental 
laboratory  in  connection  with  his  establishment, 
he  can  refer  his  difficulties  to  professional  experi- 
mental chemists  who  maintain  a  laboratory  and 
employ  a  large  staff  for  such  work.  Invention 
is  thus  being  reduced  to  scientific  method  and  or- 
ganization. 

There  is  no  more  reason,  therefore,  to  fear  that 
the  Socialist  State  will  fail  here  than  in  any  other 
branch  of  enterprise.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  the 
exigencies  of  capitalist  development  have  opened 
a  way  for  the  Socialist  State.  There  is  no  reason 
for  supposing  that  what  a  great  corporation  can 
do  in  the  way  of  stimulating  and  organizing  in- 
vention the  State  could  not  do.  It  could  build 
and  equip  great  laboratories  in  all  Industrial  cen- 
ters, and,  as  a  result  of  the  equalization  of  educa- 
tional and  other  advantages,  it  could  command  a 
vastly  greater  amount  of  talent  and  ambition  than 


Incentive  Under  Socialism  235 

has  ever  been  at  the  disposal  of  the  organizers  of 
production. 

Already  the  State  has  entered  this  field  of  effort 
and  attained  a  large  measure  of  success.  In  con- 
nection with  the  military  and  naval  forces  of  every 
great  nation  organized  research  and  invention  has 
been  developed  to  a  remarkable  extent.  Each 
year  great  Inventions  are  perfected  by  men  In  these 
services  which,  had  they  been  made  by  civilians, 
might  have  been  sold  for  large  sums.  Yet,  In  the 
vast  majority  of  cases,  promotion  with  a  small  In- 
crease of  salary,  is  the  only  material  gain  of  the 
Inventors.  In  the  construction  of  the  Panama 
Canal  workers  In  the  employ  of  the  Government 
have  made  inventions  of  great  value,  and,  every 
year,  employes  of  the  United  States  Department 
of  Agriculture  make  Inventions  and  discoveries 
which  result  in  the  saving  of  millions  of  dollars  per 
annum  to  the  nation. 

The  social  organization  of  inventive  genius  and 
ability  Is  not  a  dream  of  Utopia,  therefore,  but 
a  definite  possibility,  well  rooted  in  the  actual  life 
of  the  present.  The  Individual  Inventor  and  the 
chance  discovery  will  not  become  obsolete.  The 
passion  to  create  new  forms  and  forces,  the  desire 
for  recognition  and  honor,  and  the  aim  to  benefit 
mankind  will  continue  to  urge  and  Inspire  Indi- 
vidual effort.     But  society  will  no  longer  be  con- 


236  Applied  Socialism 

tent  to  leave  the  important  functions  of  Invention 
and  discovery  unregulated  and  unorganized.  It 
will  develop  that  collective  organization  of  Inven- 
tive talent  which  capitalism  has  already  begun. 
In  the  words  of  Professor  Ward,  "  When  we  re- 
member how  vast  have  been  the  results  that  have 
been  achieved  through  Invention  pursued  In  a 
purely  spontaneous  and  unsystematized  way,  we 
naturally  wonder  what  might  be  the  effect  of  Its 
reduction  to  scientific  method  and  Its  Inculcation 
through  systematic  courses  of  training  and  Instruc- 
tion." 1 

Well  may  we  wonder  —  but  that  wonderland 
we  must  not  enter.  For  that  way  lies  Utopia,  the 
forbidden  land ! 

1  Lester  F.  Ward,  Pure  Sociology,  p.  495. 


IX 

SOCIALISM   AND   THE   FAMILY 


IT  is  charged  that  SociaHsm  aims  at  the  de- 
struction of  monogamous  marriage  and 
family  life,  and  the  substitution  therefor  of 
what  is  euphemistically  called  "  Free  Love." 
Frightful  pictures  are  drawn  of  a  future  in  which 
human  society  returns  to  promiscuous  sex  relations, 
without  any  social  regulation.  Many  thousands 
of  pamphlets  and  books  have  been  written,  and  in- 
numerable speeches  made  to  fasten  this  charge 
upon  the  Socialist  movement.  The  pages  of 
history  have  been  microscopically  searched  in  order 
that  every  word  of  criticism  of  our  present  mar- 
riage system  uttered  by  a  professed  Socialist,  no 
matter  how  obscure,  and  every  tale  of  marital  dif- 
ficulty in  which  Socialists  have  been  involved, 
might  be  compiled  in  support  of  the  charge. 

It  is  a  curious  fact  and  a  melancholy  one,  that 
this  sort  of  attack  is  nowadays  most  commonly 
made  by  the  clergy  of  a  great  church  which  has 
been  a  conspicuous  victim  of  the  same  ugly  charge. 
The  Catholic  Church,  as  such,  is  not  responsible 

237 


238  Applied  Socialism 

for  this.  Her  position  upon  the  question  of  So- 
cialism is  that  of  neutrality.  But  it  is  unfortu- 
nately true  that  many  of  her  clergy  have  repeatedly 
hurled  the  charge  of  being  hostile  to  monogamic 
marriage  against  the  Socialist  movement.^  Have 
these  priests  so  soon  forgotten  the  similar  charges 
made  against  their  own  Church,  one  wonders! 
Can  it  be  possible  that  they  have  already  forgotten 
the  cruel  attacks  made  by  fanatical  Protestants 
against  convent  and  monastery  and  confessional? 
Do  they  not  remember  the  insult  and  ignominy 
heaped  upon  millions  of  men  and  women  of 
Catholic  faith  by  the  "  revelations  "  of  the  "  ex- 
priests  "  and  "  escaped  nuns  "  ? 

The  Socialist  movement  is  not  the  only  move- 
ment against  which  the  insulting  charge  of  being 
composed  of  promoters  of  lust  and  enemies  of  the 

1  In  The  Independent,  of  New  York,  August  30,  1906,  page 
534,  the  following  statement  appeared: 

"  This  extraordinary  editorial  note  appears  in  one  of  the 
most  independent  papers  of  its  class,  the  Catholic  Citizen,  of 
Milwaukee: 

"  '  At  Milwaukee,  the  past  week,  there  came  before  the  board 
of  aldermen  a  question  of  granting  licenses  to  eleven  notorious 
saloons,  most  of  which  are  virtually  temples  of  "  free  love." 
Singular  to  relate,  all  of  the  twelve  Socialist  aldermen  voted 
against  licensing  these  places  and,  sad  to  say,  all  the  Catholic 
aldermen,  except  one,  voted  to  license  these  temples  of  "free 
love."  Evidently  it  is  a  condition  and  not  a  theory  that  con- 
fronts us.' 

"  We  offer  no  comment,  except  to  say  that  it  concerns  those 
whom  it  concerns." 


Socialism  and  the  Family  239 

family  has  been  hurled.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact, 
fraught  with  profound  significance,  that  the  same 
charge  has  been  made  against  nearly  every  great 
movement  in  history.  It  was  made  against  the 
early  Christians  by  their  pagan  enemies.  When 
we  remember  how  vice  was  cultivated  In  that 
pagan  society  In  which  the  Christian  Church  was 
founded,  there  is  something  grotesquely  ironical  In 
the  memory  of  the  fact  that  the  early  Christians 
were  denounced,  even  as  the  Socialists  of  to-day 
are  denounced,  as  Atheists  who  secretly  conspired 
against  civil  order  and  family  life.  Yet,  such  Is 
the  well-known  testimony  of  the  historians.  The 
meetings  of  the  Christians  were  alleged  to  be  given 
over  to  all  kinds  of  debauchery  and  sexual  excesses. 
In  pre-Reformation  times  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  was  assailed  upon  the  same  grounds. 
Did  not  the  priestly  Ideal  of  celibacy  prove  that 
marriage  was  at  best  only  tolerated  by  the  Church 
as  a  necessary  evil,  but  held  to  be  incompatible 
with  exemplary  holiness?  It  was  charged  that 
celibacy  was  only  a  priestly  fraud,  that  the  priest- 
hood reveled  in  the  jus  prima  noctis,  that  in 
monastery  and  convent  lust  reigned  supreme,  and 
that  the  church  as  a  whole  was  attempting  to  de- 
stroy family  life.  Even  within  the  last  twenty- 
five  years  Protestant  fanatics  of  the  Kensit  type 
have  made  these  charges  the  basis  of  their  savage 
and  brutal  assaults  upon  the  Catholic  Church. 


240  ^Applied  Socialism 

In  its  turn  Protestantism  had  to  encounter  the 
charge  of  "  Free  Love."  It  was  hurled  against 
Luther  and  his  followers,  especially,  after  the  re- 
bellious monk  took  a  nun  for  his  wife.  It  was 
made  against  Luther's  riv^al  revolutionist  Thomas 
Miinzer  and  his  followers.  Even  to  this  day 
marriage  in  a  Protestant  church  or  by  civil  cere- 
mony is  regarded  as  no-marriage  by  the  Catholic 
Church,  a  living  reminder  to  us  that  the  Protestant 
is  still  an  "  infidel "  and  Protestant  marriage 
adulterous. 

Coming  down  to  the  popular  movements  of  mod- 
ern times,  we  find  the  same  old  charge  being  made 
against  the  Chartists  in  England,  the  Quakers,  the 
Abolitionists  and,  especially,  the  pioneers  of  the 
Woman's  Rights  movement.  Frances  Wright, 
Ernestine  L.  Rose  and  Abby  Kelly  Foster,  among 
others,  were  assailed  as  advocates  of  "  Free  Love  " 
who  sought  to  destroy  the  family  and  the  home. 
When  Mr.  Roosevelt,  soon  after  leaving  the  presi- 
dential office,  made  the  old  insulting  charge 
against  the  Socialists  of  America  he  had  evidently 
forgotten  that  in  1856,  in  Fremont's  campaign, 
the  same  charge  was  made  against  those  who  laid 
the  foundations  of  the  Republican  Party;  that 
through  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land  bit-, 
terly  unjust  partizan  spirits  chanted  the  scandal- 
ous refrain,  *'  Fremont,  Free  soil,  Free  niggers 
and  Free  Love  " —  which  was  a  despicable  and 


•    Socialism  and  the  Family  241 

cowardly  parody  of  the  Fremont  slogan,  "  Free 
soil  and  Free  men." 

We  do  not  need  to  deny  that  from  time  to  time 
individual  Socialists  have  assailed  monogamic 
marriage  or  openly  practiced  what  is  called  "  Free 
Love."  Nor  need  we  resort  to  the  Tu  qiioque! 
argument,  easy  as  that  would  be.  That  vice 
cloaked  by  religion  has  existed,  under  Catholic 
and  Protestant  rule  alike,  no  candid  student  of 
history  can  deny.  It  has  found  shelter  in  the 
papal  chair  and  in  reformatory  sectarianism. 
That  the  excesses  of  Montanism  in  the  early 
Christian  church,  and  of  some  of  the  Anabaptist 
sects  of  the  Middle  Ages,  led,  in  some  instances, 
to  a  vicious  promiscuity  of  sex  relationships  is  not 
to  be  denied,  but  that  fact  does  not  justify  an  at- 
tack upon  Christianity.  We  can  at  least  be  suf- 
ficiently Christlike  in  our  human  charity  to  re- 
frain from  following  the  example  of  our  revilers. 

Not  restrained  by  any  such  sense  of  charity, 
many  of  our  opponents  have  searched  the  history 
of  all  the  numerous  communistic  theories  and  ex- 
periments of  the  past  for  evidence  of  antagonism 
to  monogamic  marriage,  or  of  sexual  excess,  and 
used  that  evidence  in  attacking  present  day  Social- 
ism. That  there  is  no  bond  of  connection  either 
historical  or  philosophical,  between  the  modern  So- 
cialist movement  and  those  communistic  theories 
and  movements,  many  of  which  were  of  religious 


242  Applied  Socialism 

origin,  offshoots  of  the  Christian  church,  does  not 
restrain  these  unscrupulous  opponents.  The  fact 
remains,  however,  that  whether  we  consider  celib- 
acy or  sexual  promiscuity,  the  two  principal  forms 
in  which  hostility  to  monogamous  marriage  and 
family  life  has  been  expressed  In  communistic  the- 
ories and  movements,  the  connection  with  religion 
is  very  close  and  intimate  while  the  connection  with 
Socialism  is  extremely  remote. 

Whatever  hostility  to  marriage  and  the  family 
has  manifested  itself  In  the  course  of  the  evolu- 
tion of  modern  Socialism  has  been  Incidental  and 
accidental,  a  remnant  of  the  old  Utopian  spirit. 
The  passion  for  perfection  Is  the  soil  in  which 
Utoplanism  flourishes.  The  Utopian  believes  that 
for  every  ill  of  human  society  a  remedy  can  be  dis- 
covered or  devised.  From  Plato  to  the  ingen- 
ious Mr.  Wells,  all  the  Utopians  have  attempted 
to  devise  plans  for  a  perfect  social  state.  Not  a 
few  of  the  great  Utopians  have  been  inspired  by 
secular  Ideals.  Plato's  Republic,  More's  Utopia, 
and  Harrington's  Oceatia,  for  example,  are  the 
dreams  of  political  philosophers.  On  the  other 
hand,  many  have  been  inspired  by  religious  ideals. 
Campanella's  City  of  the  Sun,  Saint  Simon's  New 
Christianity,  Father  Rapp  and  the  "  Harmonists," 
Ann  Lee  and  the  "  Shakers,"  J.  Humphrey 
Noyes  and  the  "  Perfectionists  "  are  illustrations 
of  Utoplanism  inspired  by  religious  mysticism. 


Socialism  and  the  Family  243 

Far  from  being  less  antagonistic  to  monogamic 
marriage  than  secular  Communism,  religious 
Communism  was  much  more  generally  hostile  to 
It.  Plato  has  been  regarded  as  teaching  "  Free 
Love,"  but  if  by  that  term  we  mean  either  sexual 
promiscuity  or  the  right  of  individuals  to  mate 
according  to  their  fancy,  without  interference  by 
the  State,  it  is  altogether  misleading  when  applied 
to  the  teaching  of  Plato.  Living  In  an  age  when 
women  were  regarded  as  chattels,  Plato  advocated 
common  ownership  of  women  as  well  as  of  other 
forms  of  property.  But  In  his  Republic  all  sexual 
relations  are  regulated  by  the  State,  and  confined 
to  those  persons  who  possess  certain  physical, 
mental  and  moral  qualifications.  Rather  than  de- 
scribing It  as  "  Free  Love,"  we  might  describe  It 
as  a  very  highly  developed  form  of  State  regulated 
stirpiculture. 

Sir  Thomas  More,  on  the  other  hand,  regarded 
woman  as  a  human  being,  not  as  a  chattel.  In 
his  Utopia  he  retains  the  family  based  upon  mon- 
ogamic marriage,  but  procreation  Is  subject  to  a 
large  degree  of  State  supervision  and  regulation. 
When  we  come  to  Campanella,  the  Calabrian 
monk,  we  find  him  at  one  with  Plato  In  advocating 
Communism  of  women  and  State  regulated  stirpi- 
culture. It  Is  a  strange  union  this  of  the  pagan 
philosopher  and  the  loyal  son  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  but  not  at  all  uncommon.     Upon  one  im- 


244  Applied  Socialism 

portant  point  they  differ,  and  the  difference  Is 
entirely  to  the  credit  of  the  Catholic  monk. 
Campanella  could  not  tolerate  slavery:  in  his 
Chit  as  Solis  there  are  no  slaves  as  there  are  in 
Plato's  Republic.  But  they  are  one  in  their  hos- 
tility to  marriage  and  family  life. 

A  very  slight  consideration  of  the  subject  will 
suffice  to  explain  why  so  many  of  the  Utopian 
schemes  of  all  ages,  both  secular  and  religious, 
manifest  hostility  toward  the  monogamic  family. 
To  the  Utopian  mind,  mastered  by  a  passionate 
yearning  for  perfection  and  the  belief  that  It  can 
be  attained,  every  ill-working  human  institution  is 
a  challenge  and  an  opportunity  for  experiment. 
No  matter  how  essential  to  human  progress  and 
well-being  we  may  regard  it,  we  cannot  claim 
that  monogamic  marriage  has  been  perfectly  suc- 
cessful at  any  time  or  in  any  place.  The  failure  of 
a  large  percentage  of  marriages  is  a  universal  phe- 
nomenon to  which  we  must  give  recognition.  It 
is  quite  natural,  therefore,  that  the  Utopian  de- 
sire for  perfection  should  Inspire  many  attempts 
to  devise  a  more  successful  marriage  system. 
That  some  of  the  plans  devised  and  experiments 
made  seem  foolish,  fantastic,  or  even  repulsive 
and  dangerous,  need  not  blind  us  to  the  fact  that 
the  comparative  failure  of  monogamic  marriage 
is  the  secret  of  their  origin. 

This  is  true  of  those  early  Christian  sects  which 


Socialism  and  the  Family  245 

preached  and  practiced  celibacy,  no  less  than  of 
Plato's  ideal.  It  is  true  of  the  antagonism  to 
marriage  which  underlay  the  sexual  ascetism  of 
some  of  the  mediaeval  Christian  sects,  which 
ascetism,  by  the  way,  often  provided  a  reaction 
to  sexual  promiscuity.  It  is  true,  also,  of  the 
Shakers  and  similar  sects  of  celibates  in  modern 
times.  On  the  other  hand,  it  Is  equally  true  of 
the  antagonism  to  monogamic  marriage  which  we 
find  exemplified  in  the  sex  communism  of  some  of 
the  early  Christians  during  the  first  few  centuries 
of  Christendom;  of  such  mediaeval  sects  as  the 
Apostolicans,  the  Adamites  and  the  Brothers  and 
Sisters  of  Free  Spirit;  and  of  the  Perfectionists 
of  Oneida  and  similar  sects  in  our  own  time. 

In  addition  to  the  contempt  for  the  monogamic 
marriage  system  entertained  by  the  host  of  seek- 
ers for  perfection  on  account  of  Its  manifold  short- 
comings, the  fear  that  It  could  not  be  reconciled 
with  Communism  and  equality  has  played  a  large 
part  in  determining  the  exclusion  of  the  monoga- 
mous family  from  many  great  Utopian  schemes 
and  experiments.  Private  property  and  the 
monogamous  family  are  very  closely  associated  in 
the  evolution  of  human  society,  and  It  is  not  to 
be  wondered  at  that,  In  those  societies  In  which 
production  rested  upon  hand  labor  and  was  very 
strictly  limited.  Communism  In  consumption  goods 
was  regarded  as  being  incompatible  with  the  main- 


246  Applied  Socialism 

tenance  of  the  separate  family  life.  Would  there 
not  be  the  inevitable  temptation  to  hoard  and 
otherwise  advance  the  interests  of  the  family 
against  the  interests  of  the  community?  Above 
all,  would  there  not  be  danger  of  overpopulation 
—  that,  in  the  words  of  our  friend,  M.  Georges 
Renard,  "  too  many  guests  might  be  summoned 
to  the  banquet  of  life  "  ?  ^ 

Modern  Socialism  does  not  have  to  face  this 
danger.  In  the  first  place,  it  does  not  aim  at 
Communism  in  consumption  goods  but  at  a 
limited  sort  of  Communism  in  production  goods 
and,  as  Kautsky  reminds  us,  that  Is  not  at  all  in- 
compatible with  separate  family  life.^  "  The 
family  of  to-day  is  in  no  way  inconsistent  with 
the  nature  of  cooperative  production.  Therefore, 
the  carrying  Into  practice  of  a  Socialist  order  of 
society  does  not  of  Itself  in  any  way  necessitate 
the  dissolution  of  the  existing  family  form."  ^  In 
the  second  place,  the  immense  productive  forces 
of  to-day  have  banished  the  fear  that  under  the 
ideal  conditions  at  which  Socialism  aims  over- 
population would  result  and  bring  back  the  lean 
and  hungry  years  of  struggle.  Not  only  do  we 
recognize  that  we  have  now  available  means  of 

1  Le  Socialisme  a  I'  CEuvre,  p.  425. 

2  Karl  Kautsky,  Communism  in  Central  Europe  in  the  Time 
of  the  Reformation,  p.  15. 

2  Karl  Kautsky,  Das  Erfurter  Programm,  p.  146. 


Socialism  and  the  Family  247 

production  which  make  the  fear  of  the  older  Mal- 
thusians  seem  childlike,  but  that  we  can  increase 
our  really  useful  and  necessary  production  enor- 
mously. 

Finally,  there  is  the  assurance  which  human 
experience  gives  that,  among  human  beings,  popu- 
lation neither  increases  abnormally  where  the  high- 
est degree  of  physical  comfort  and  luxury  is  at- 
tained, nor  keeps  to  the  minimum  level  consistent 
with  the  maintenance  of  the  race  where  poverty 
abounds  and  the  struggle  for  existence  is  fiercest. 
Quite  the  contrary  is  true,  in  fact.  Where  the 
standard  of  living  has  been  raised  most,  there 
population  has  most  nearly  approximated  that 
equilibrium  which  the  old  political  philosophers 
held  to  be  the  ideal  state.  Where,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  standard  of  living  is  lowest,  where  there 
is  most  poverty  and  hardship,  not  only  is  the  birth- 
rate highest  but  the  actual  increase  of  population 
is  greatest,  despite  the  heavy  death-rate  which  is 
always  coexistent  with  a  high  birth-rate.  How- 
ever we  may  differ  concerning  the  interpretation  of 
these  and  similar  phenomena  familiar  to  students 
of  the  subject,^  it  is  certain  that  history  lends  no 
support  to  the  belief  that  by  abolishing  poverty 
and  the  fear  of  poverty,  and  assuring  comfort  and 
even  luxury  for  all,  society  must  incur  the  peril  of 

^  I  have  dealt  at  some  length  with  this  subject  In  my  Common 
^ense  of  the  Milk  Question,  Chap.  I.    J.  S, 


248  Applied  Socialism 

an  excess  of  population.  The  rich  and  ruling 
classes  of  all  ages  have  enjoyed  the  comfort  and 
the  luxury,  but  nowhere  at  any  time  have  they 
equaled  the  poorest  classes  in  their  fecundity. 

Now,  candor  compels  the  admission  that  some 
writers  of  prominence  in  the  modern  Socialist 
movement  have  manifested  quite  as  much  contempt 
for  monogamic  marriage  and  the  family  life  based 
upon  It  as  any  of  the  older  Utopians,  and  that 
they  have  quite  as  freely  declared  their  belief  that 
the  Socialist  society  of  the  future  will  sweep  them 
aside.  Among  these  writers  may  be  mentioned 
the  veteran  leader  of  the  German  Social  Democ- 
racy, August  Bebel,  and  the  British  Socialists,  Bel- 
fort  Bax  and  the  late  William  Morris.  But, 
while  candor  compels  this  admission.  It  likewise 
compels  us  to  assert  that  the  opinions  of  these  in- 
dividuals, however  Interesting  they  may  be,  are 
not  representative  of  the  movement.  The  So- 
cialist movement  Is  not  opposed  to  marriage  In  the 
present  State,  and  has  no  substitute  for  It  In  the 
Socialist  State  of  the  future. 

Bebel,  for  example,  predicts  that  In  the  Social- 
ist State  the  marriage  of  a  man  and  a  woman  will 
be  a  free  voluntary  alliance,  subject  to  no  regula- 
tion by  society,  to  be  dissolved  at  will.  In  so  far 
as  he  Is  sketching  that  which  he  regards  as  the 
Ideal  to  be  aimed  at,  he  Is  justified.  We  cannot 
say  to  men  that  they  shall  not  paint  dream  pictures 


Socialism  and  the  Family  249 

of  the  future.  But  every  Socialist  is  entitled  to 
laugh  at  Bebel's  picture,  and  to  say  that  it  is  an 
expression,  not  of  Socialism,  but  of  the  rankest 
and  crudest  individualism.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  the  free  alliances  described  by  Morris  and 
Bax.  Desirable  they  may  or  may  not  be  —  de 
giistibiis  non  est  disputandiim!  Our  only  concern 
is  with  the  fact  that  they  are  not  based  upon  the 
principle  of  Socialism,  but  upon  that  of  individual- 
ism. Each  of  these  writers  makes  the  mistake  of 
regarding  marriage  as  it  exists  to-day  as  a  property 
relation.^  That  It  was  so  in  Its  origin,  the  wife 
being  the  husband's  property,  is  hardly  open  to 
question.  That  there  are  still  not  a  few  legal  and 
political  advantages  enjoyed  by  the  husband  which 
are  denied  to  the  wife,  reminding  us  of  that  old 
basis  of  marriage,  is  true.  But  marriage  is  not 
merely  an  institution  for  the  perpetuation  of 
property,  nor  even  primarily  that.  The  improved 
status  of  woman,  the  increasing  degree  to  which 
she  approaches  equality  with  man  through  the  ex- 
tension of  her  legal  and  political  rights,  and  the 
educational  advantages  now  open  to  her,  are 
factors  not  to  be  ignored.  The  normal  man  of 
to-day,  in  progressive  countries,  neither  regards 
his  wife  as  a  chattel  nor  as  a  slave  to  be  commanded 
and    driven.     That    there    are    many    marriages 

1  See,  for  example,  Morris,  Neivs  From  Noiuhere,  pp.  89-90 
Tenth  Edition. 


250  Applied  Socialism 

which  are  based  upon  economic  considerations  Is 
unhappily  true.  There  are  loveless  marriages  for 
fortune,  which  Is  only  a  legalized  form  of  prosti- 
tution. There  are  thousands  of  women  who  sub- 
mit to  brutal  husbands  simply  because  they  are 
economically  dependent,  which  Is  only  a  form  of 
slavery. 

It  is  against  such  conditions  as  these,  and  not 
against  monogamic  marriage  itself,  that  a  great 
deal  of  the  Socialist  criticism  of  modern  marriage 
and  family  life  is  directed.  Thus,  in  the  Commu- 
nist Manifesto,  Marx  and  Engels,  who  both  looked 
upon  monogamy  as  the  necessary  basis  for  the 
ideal  sex  relation,  answer  the  old  charge  of  at- 
tempting to  abolish  the  family.  First  of  all,  they 
point  to  the  destruction  of  family  life  by  capital- 
ism, which  has  forced  the  wife  to  compete  with 
the  husband  and  the  child  with  the  father  In  the 
labor  market;  taken  the  mother  away  from  the 
home  and  the  cradle  of  her  child ;  herded  the  work- 
ers and  their  families  In  hovels  and  tenements 
where  It  is  difficult  for  virtue  to  flourish.  Then 
they  point  to  the  commercialization  of  marriage, 
—  that  legalized  prostitution  which  takes  place 
when  men  and  women  marry,  not  for  love,  but  for 
wealth,  title,  or  social  position  —  and  to  the  vulgar 
prostitution  and  the  vice  with  which  society  Is 
honeycombed.  "  Even  If  we  were  aiming  to  bring 
about  community  of  women,  as  you  charge  us  with 


Socialism  and  the  Family  251 

doing,"  they  say  In  effect,  "  we  should  only  be  tr>'- 
ing  to  do  In  a  frank  and  open  way  that  which  you 
already  do  but  hypocritically  conceal." 

Strangely  enough,  what  Marx  and  Engels  wrote 
as  a  plea  for  the  family  and  an  attack  upon  the 
forces  menacing  the  family,  has  been  quoted  by 
our  opponents  to  prove  our  hostility  to  marriage 
and  the  family !  Again  and  again  I  have  been 
called  upon  to  expose  this  dishonest  and  cowardly 
form  of  attack.  The  Rt.  Rev.  James  A.  McFaul, 
Roman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Trenton,  N.  J.,  does 
not  hesitate  to  take  the  words  of  Marx  and  Engels, 
and  by  omitting  some  words  and  Inserting  others, 
make  them  appear  to  have  assailed  marriage. 
Marx  and  Engels  wrote  "  that  the  abolition  of  the 
present  system  of  production  must  bring  with  It 
the  abolition  of  the  community  of  women  spring- 
ing from  that  system,  i.  e.,  of  prostitution,  both 
public  and  private."  In  a  Pastoral  Letter  pub- 
lished In  1908  the  Bishop  makes  the  writers  say 
"  that  the  abolition  of  the  present  system  of  pro- 
duction must  bring  with  it  the  abolition  of  the 
community  of  women  —  present  marriage  — 
springing  from  that  system  of  prostitution,  both 
public  and  private."  ^  When  I  publicly  exposed 
the  fraudulent  trick  the  Bishop  neither  apologized 
nor  withdrew  the  statement,  but  in  a  letter  to  the 

1  Pastoral  Letter  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  James  A.  McFaul,  Bishop  of 
Trenton.    Some  Modern  Problems,  1908,  p.  27. 


252  Applied  Socialism 

Trenton  Evening  Times,  denied  that  the  passage 
as  he  quoted  it  misrepresented  Marx  and  Engels. 
It  was  translated,  he  explained,  by  the  Rev.  Father 
Boarman,  S.  J.,  who  exercised  the  translator's 
right  to  add  a  word  here  and  there  "  to  bring  out 
the  true  meaning."  ^  The  good  Bishop  of  Tren- 
ton evidently  holds  the  ninth  commandment 
lightly. 

In  his  admirable  exposition  of  the  Erfurt  Pro- 
gramme of  the  German  Social  Democracy,  Kaut- 
sky  brings  against  the  existing  order  a  very 
similar  indictment  to  that  of  Marx  and  Engels. 
"  It  is  not  the  Socialists  who  are  destroying  the 
family  —  not  only  wishing  to  destroy,  but  actually 
doing  it  before  our  eyes;  it  is  the  capitalists. 
Many  slaveowners  in  former  days  tore  the  hus- 
band from  the  wife,  the  parents  from  the  children 
who  were  of  age  to  work;  but  capitalists  go  be- 
yond the  shameless  deeds  of  slavery;  they  snatch 
the  sucking  child  from  its  mother,  and  force  her 
to  entrust  it  to  the  hands  of  strangers."  -  And 
again :  "  The  defenselessness  of  women,  who  have 
hitherto  been  shut  up  in  their  homes,  and  who 
have  only  dim  ideas  of  public  life  and  the  forms  of 
organization,  is  so  great  that  the  capitalist  em- 
ployer dares  to  pay  them  regularly  wages  which 
do  not  suffice  for  their  maintenance,  and  to  throw 

1  Trenton  Evening  Times,  Nov.  19,  1908. 
^  Das  Erfurter  Programm,  p.  4. 


Socialism  and  the  Family  253 

them  back  on  prostitution  for  the  additional  amount 
required.  The  increase  of  women's  industrial 
labor  shows  everywhere  a  tendency  to  draw  after  it 
an  increase  of  prostitution.  In  God-fearing  and 
moral  States  there  are  '  flourishing  '  branches  of 
industry  whose  workwomen  are  so  badly  paid  that 
they  would  starv^e  if  they  did  not  eke  out  their 
earnings  by  the  wages  of  immorality,  and  the  heads 
of  these  businesses  say  that  it  is  only  through  the 
low  scale  of  wages  that  they  are  able  to  meet  the 
competition  and  to  keep  their  concerns  in  a 
flourishing  state.  A  higher  scale  of  wages  would 
ruin  them."  ^ 

In  his  little  book,  The  Origin  of  the  Family, 
Private  Property  and  the  State,  Friedrich  Engels 
discusses  with  admirable  lucidity  the  relation  of 
private  property  to  monogamous  marriage.  He 
traces  the  development  of  monogamy  through 
private  property  and  its  inheritance,  accepting 
Bachofen's  view  that  the  development  from  group 
marriage  to  monogamy  was  mainly  due  to  woman. 
But  the  monogamy  which  arose  in  response  to  the 
need  for  a  system  of  inheritance  and  bequest  was 
one-sided  and  bound  only  the  woman,  while  man 
retained  his  polygamous  practices,  either  secretly 
or  openly.  A  very  large  part  of  inheritable 
wealth  consists  of  property  in  the  means  of  pro- 
duction.    Will  the  abolition  of  that  form  of  prop- 

1  Idem,  p.  42. 


254  Applied  Socialism 

erty  entail  the  abolition  of  the  system  of  monoga- 
mous marriage?  On  the  contrary,  argues  Engels, 
it  will  place  woman  upon  a  plane  of  equality  with 
man  and  make  monogamy  the  rule  for  men  as 
well  as  for  women.  "  Remove  the  economic  con- 
siderations that  now  force  women  to  submit  to  the 
customary  disloyalty  of  men,  and  you  place 
woman  on  an  equal  footing  with  men.  All  pres- 
ent experiences  prove  that  this  will  tend  much 
more  strongly  to  make  men  truly  monogamous 
than  to  make  women  polyandrous."  ^ 

Let  it  be  admitted  that  a  few  modern  Socialist 
writers,  harking  back  to  the  Utopian  spirit  and 
method  of  pre-Marxian  times,  have  assailed  mon- 
ogamic  marriage  and  preached  an  individualistic 
ideal  of  sexual  freedom  which  may  fairly  be  re- 
garded as  meaning  polygamy  and  polyandry. 
Shall  we,  then,  condemn  the  whole  movement,  and 
ignore  the  fact,  which  its  fair-minded  critics  recog- 
nize,2  that  Socialism  does  not  of  necessity  involve 
any  interference  with  the  existence  of  the  family, 
either  by  the  abolition  of  the  marriage  tie  or  the 
diminution  of  parental  responsibility?  Shall  we 
close  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  privilege  of 
non-interference  by  society  which  is  asserted  by 
the  advocates  of  "  Free  Love  "  is  not  only  not  in- 

1  Friedrich  Engels,   Origin   of  the  Family,  Private  Property 
and  the  State,  Chap.  III. 

2  See,  e.  g.,  Conner,  The  Socialist  State,  p.  122. 


Socialism  and  the  Family  255 

volved  of  necessity  in  the  philosophy  or  pro- 
gramme of  Socialism,  but  is  in  fact  incompatible 
with  that  principle  of  social  responsibility  and  su- 
premacy which  distinguishes  Socialism  from  An- 
archism,^  and  upon  which  the  entire  Socialist  pro- 
gramme ultimately  rests?  Shall  we  ignore  the 
fact  that,  from  Marx  and  Engels  down  to  the 
humble  propagandist  on  the  street  corner,  the  vast 
majority  of  Socialists  have  assailed  those  forces 
which  make  for  the  destruction  of  family  life,  and 
have  upheld  the  strictest  monogamy  as  the  ideal 
to  be  attained?  Surely,  the  juster  view  is  to  re- 
gard these  things  as  the  characteristic  features  of 
Socialism,  and  the  "  Free  Love  "  propaganda  as 
an  offshoot,  akin  to  those  offshoots  of  Christianity 
which  manifested  themselves  in  the  preaching  and 
practice  of  sex  communism  1 

II 

So  much  for  the  negative  side  of  our  discus- 
sion. On  the  positive  side  it  must  be  frankly 
stated  that  Socialism  must  Inevitably  affect  the 
family  more  or  less  profoundly.  Like  the  State, 
the  family  is  subject  to  economic  evolution.  As 
the  macrocosm  is,  so  is  the  microcosm.  There  has 
never  been  any  disposition  upon  the  part  of  the 
leaders  of  Socialist  thought  to  evade  this  fact  or 

1  Cf.  HiLLQUiT,  History  of  Socialism  in  the  United  States,  Re- 
vised Edition,  pp.  209-212. 


2^6  Applied  Socialism 

to  deny  it.  Even  now,  within  the  existing  order, 
family  life  is  undergoing  great  changes.  Upon 
every  hand  we  see  changes  so  extensive  and  funda- 
mental that  many  of  our  most  conservative  friends 
are  talking  about  "the  passing  of  the  family." 
To  deny  that  the  vast  social  and  economic  changes 
which  Socialism  implies  will  influence  the  basic 
institution  of  social  organization  would  be  exceed- 
ingly puerile. 

"  We  are  aware,  it  is  true,"  says  Kautsky,  "  that 
every  special  mode  of  industrial  life  has  its  spe- 
cial form  of  the  household,  to  which  a  special 
family  form  must  correspond.  We  do  not  be- 
lieve that  the  present  form  of  the  family  is  the 
final  form,  and  we  expect  that  a  new  form  of  so- 
ciety will  also  develop  a  new  family  organization. 
But  such  an  expectation  is  a  very  different  thing 
from  the  attempt  to  dissolve  every  family  bond."  ^ 
Now,  this  is  at  once  very  frank  and  very  lucid. 
It  is  also  very  obvious.  A  great  deal  of  the 
world's  manufacture  was  formerly  carried  on  in 
the  home.  That  the  transference  of  production 
from  the  home  to  the  factory  led  to  profound 
changes  in  family  life  is  indisputable.  It  is  also 
true  that  a  great  many  other  functions  which  were 
formerly  left  to  the  family  are  now  performed  by 
the  State.  There  was  a  time  when  the  child's 
welfare  was  left  to  the   family  entirely.      If  the 

^  Das  Erfurter  Programm,  p.  41.      (Italics  mine.     J.  S.) 


Socialism  and  the  Family  257 

parents  were  too  poor  to  provide  the  children  with 
educational  advantages,  or  were  too  ignorant  to 
appreciate  the  importance  of  education,  the  chil- 
dren were  left  in  ignorance.  There  was  no  legis- 
lation protecting  the  child  against  the  cruelty  of 
its  parents.  The  State  did  not  interfere  to  save 
the  child  from  brutal  treatment.  The  child  was 
left  exclusively  to  the  parents.  Housing  was  a 
matter  which  the  family  alone  cared  for.  No 
matter  how  unsanitary  it  might  be,  no  matter  what 
the  danger  to  the  helpless  child,  or  to  society,  the 
State  did  not  interfere.  The  child  of  feeble  men- 
tality was  left  to  the  exclusive  care  of  its  parents. 
The  idea  of  collective  interest  and  responsibility 
for  the  special  care  and  training  of  idiots  and  deaf 
mutes  and  blind  children  had  not  yet  developed. 
When  smallpox  or  diphtheria  entered  a  family 
the  State  did  not  assume  the  responsibility  it  does 
to-day.  The  idea  of  the  State  as  Over-Parent,  or 
Outer-Parent,  as  Mr.  Wells  ^  so  happily  expresses 
it,  is  a  new  one.  That  it  has  greatly  modified  and 
changed  some  important  phases  of  family  life  as 
it  used  to  be  cannot  be  denied.  It  has  not,  how- 
ever, dissolved  every  family  bond.  So  far  as  those 
activities  which  we  have  enumerated  are  con- 
cerned, no  sane  person  will  contend  that  they  have 
Injured  the  family. 

But  while  it  is  self-evident  that  many  changes 

^  H.  G.  Wells,  Socialism  and  the  Family,  p.  6i. 


258  Applied  Socialism 

must  take  place  in  the  family  as  a  result  of  the 
realization  of  the  Socialist  ideal  in  the  political  and 
economic  life  of  the  State,  it  is  impossible  to  make 
a  positive  forecast  and  describe  those  changes  In 
detail.  Upon  this  point  Engels  says:  "What 
we  may  anticipate  about  the  adjustment  of  sexual 
relations  after  the  impending  downfall  of  capital- 
ist production  is  mainly  of  a  negative  nature  and 
mostly  confined  to  elements  that  will  disappear. 
But  what  will  be  added?  That  will  be  decided 
after  a  new  generation  has  come  to  maturity  —  a 
race  of  men  who  never  in  their  lives  have  had  any 
occasion  for  buying  with  money  or  other  economic 
means  of  power  the  surrender  of  a  woman;  a  race 
of  women  who  have  never  had  any  occasion  for 
surrendering  to  any  man  for  any  reason  but  love, 
or  for  refusing  to  surrender  to  their  lover  from 
fear  of  economic  consequences.  Once  such  people 
are  in  the  world,  they  will  not  give  a  moment's 
thought  to  what  we  to-day  believe  should  be  their 
course.  They  will  follow  their  own  practice  and 
fashion  their  own  public  opinion  about  the  indi- 
vidual practice  of  every  person  —  only  this  and 
nothing  more."  ^ 

We  may  concede  without  argument  the  con- 
tention that  men  and  women  of  future  generations 
will  not  consider  what  we  of  to-day  believe  they 
ought  to  do.     But  that  is  beside  the  point.     The 

^  Origin  of  the  Family,  Private  Property  and  the  State,  p.  loi. 


Socialism  and  the  Family  259 

question  is,  not  how  far  our  beliefs  and  opinions 
will  influence  the  family  life  of  the  Socialist  regime, 
but  how  far,  if  at  all,  can  we  predict  what  the 
family  life  will  be  from  (a)  the  principles  of  So- 
cialism, and  (b)  the  observed  facts  and  tenden- 
cies of  social  evolution.  Are  there  any  conditions 
which  must  characterize  family  life,  the  absence 
of  which  will  prove  that  the  Socialist  State  has  not 
been  attained?  And  are  there  any  tendencies  In 
the  present  attitude  toward  marriage  and  the 
family  which  offer  any  suggestions  for  an  outline 
of  the  probable  attitude  toward  marriage  and  the 
family  under  Socialism?  I  believe  that  any  af- 
firmative answer  can  be  given  to  each  of  these  ques- 
tions with  full  scientific  sanction. 

Let  us  consider  the  subject  first  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  essentials  of  Socialist  philosophy.  We 
can  say  with  reasonable  certainty  that  marriage 
will  not  rest  upon  "  Free  Love  "  as  we  have  thus 
far  Interpreted  that  term.  It  will  not  be  a  mat- 
ter which  concerns  only  the  Individual  man  and 
the  individual  woman.  The  State  will  exercise 
some  control  over  marriage.  It  is  a  fundamental 
postulate  of  Socialism  that  the  social  body  and  not 
the  Individual  is  supreme.  Now,  procreation  Is 
one  of  the  ends  of  marriage.  It  Is  also  a  matter 
of  vital  social  concern.  The  State,  the  social 
Over-Parent,  cannot  Ignore  its  own  interest  in  mar- 
riage, therefore.      Instead  of  exercising  less  con- 


260  Applied  Socialism 

trol  over  marriage  than  the  present  State,  It  Is 
probable  that  it  will  exercise  more.  "  We  do  not 
believe  there  will  be  a  slackening  of  family  bonds," 
says  the  Italian  writer,  Saverlo  Merlino,  "  but  we 
believe  other  bonds  will  be  added  to  them,  and  that 
men  will  not  be  any  the  less  good  fathers,  brothers, 
husbands,  because  they  will  be  better  citizens."  ^ 
It  is  probable  that  the  Socialist  State  will  prevent 
the  marriage  of  those  suffering  from  certain 
dangerous,  incurable  and  transmissible  diseases,  as 
well  as  of  the  feeble-minded  and  other  degenerate 
types.  There  is  something  wholly  antagonistic  to 
the  basic  principle  of  the  supremacy  of  the  social 
interest  upon  which  Socialism  rests,  as  well  as 
repugnant  to  the  moral  sense.  In  the  idea  that  such 
persons  are  to  be  free  to  marry  and  burden  the 
earth  with  their  degenerate  offspring. 

Marriage  under  Socialism  will  rest  upon  love, 
but  not  upon  the  selfish  sensualism  to  which  the 
misnomer,  "  Free  Love "  Is  commonly  applied. 
It  is  foolish  to  speak  of  "  free  "  love,  for  there 
Is  no  love  where  there  is  not  freedom.  Love  is 
not  bought  for  gold  nor  Is  it  exacted  by  fear.  So- 
cialism presupposes  the  economic  equality  of  the 
sexes,  the  independence  of  woman  as  an  economic 
unit.  Marriages  for  fortune  would  not  take  place. 
That  form  of  prostitution  would  no  longer  exist 

1  Saverio  Merlino,   Formes  et  Essence  du  Socialisme,  Paris, 
1898,  p.  115. 


Socialism  and  the  Family  261 

with  the  cloak  of  respectability  now  provided  for 
it  at  the  altar.  The  future  society  will  not  witness 
the  sickening  spectacle  of  the  prelates  of  a  great 
Church  waiting  by  the  hour  until  the  stipulated 
settlement  —  the  price  of  the  "honor"  sold  — 
has  been  paid  by  the  family  of  an  idle  parasite  to 
a  titled  fortune-hunter.  The  young  girl  will  not 
be  wedded  to  the  senile  octogenarian  for  the  pur- 
pose of  repairing  the  family  fortune.  No  woman 
will  be  driven  by  economic  necessity  into  a  love- 
less wedlock.  To  these  forms  of  prostitution 
within  wedlock  the  communism  of  economic  op- 
portunity will  put  an  end,  just  as  It  will  put  an  end 
to  that  part  of  prostitution  without  wedlock  which 
is  due  to  the  unjust  economic  conditions  of  to-day. 
Still  considering  the  subject  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  essentials  of  Socialist  philosophy,  we  may 
conclude  with  reasonable  certainty  that  in  the  So- 
cialist State  marriage  will  take  the  form  of  a  civil 
contract.  The  State  can  have  no  other  interest. 
The  complete  neutrality  of  the  State  upon  all  mat- 
ters concerning  religious  belief  and  affiliation 
leads  logically  to  the  non-recognition  of  religious 
ceremonies.  There  Is  no  reason  why  all  persons 
who  desire  to  marry  and  are  competent  to  do  so, 
should  not  be  compelled  to  be  married  by  a  civil 
authority  according  to  certain  prescribed  civil 
forms.  In  principle,  this  does  not  differ  from  the 
legal  requirement  In  most  of  our  States  that  mar- 


262  Applied  Socialism 

riages  performed  by  ecclesiastical  authorities  must 
be  registered  with  the  civil  authority.  But  the 
State  has  a  right  to  insist  that  a  matter  of  so  much 
civil  importance  must  be  considered  as  being  pri- 
marily a  matter  of  civil,  rather  than  religious  con- 
cern. This  does  not  imply  hostility  to  religion. 
Religious  freedom  is  inseparable  from  that  full 
democratic  liberty  which  Is  essential  to  Socialism. 
There  must  be  complete  freedom  of  religious  be- 
lief, association  and  worship,  and  if  any  citizens 
desired  to  add  a  religious  ceremonial  to  the  civil 
ceremonial  there  could  be  no  rational  objection, 
provided,  of  course,  that  the  religious  ceremonial 
did  not  conflict  with  the  civil  ceremonial  and  aim 
at  the  subversion  of  the  State. 

The  condition  described  by  Morris  of  every- 
body being  "  free  to  come  and  go  as  he  or  she 
pleases  "  ^  is  not  compatible  with  the  nature  and 
requirements  of  Socialist  society.  It  Ignores  the 
interest  of  the  child,  upon  which  society's  right  to 
interfere  is  pivoted.  The  social  Interest  requires 
the  greatest  possible  stability  of  marriage  and  the 
greatest  possible  parental  responsibility.  We 
need  not  fool  ourselves  into  believing  that  the  lat- 
ter can  be  dispensed  with;  that  children  can  be 
taken  better  care  of  In  communal  Institutions,  by 
social  servants,  than  in  their  own  homes  by  their 
own  parents.     That  way   lies   disaster.     One   of 

1  Neivs  from  Noivhere,  p.  90,  Tenth  Edition,  1908. 


Socialism  and  the  Family  263 

the  most  precious,  and  most  fundamental,  rights 
of  the  child  is  the  right  to  love  and  care  by  its 
own  mother.  When  It  loses  this  right,  whether 
by  death,  abandonment,  divorce  or  the  mother's 
selfish  devotion  to  her  own  pleasures,  it  loses  that 
which  is  Infinitely  precious,  and  which  no  institu- 
tion, however  scientifically  managed,  can  replace, 
not  even  when  the  Institution  is  served  by  noble 
women  in  a  spirit  of  loving  social  service.  The 
finest  experiment  in  caring  for  babies  ever  made  by 
a  modern  city  was  made  in  connection  with  the 
care  of  the  foundlings  in  the  City  of  New  York. 
But  the  babies  pined  for  mother-love  and  the 
death-rate  was  appalling.  When  an  investigating 
committee  looked  into  the  matter  a  wise  woman 
suggested  that  the  babies  needed  "  mothering," 
that  every  little  child  needed  one  pair  of  mother's 
arms.  The  babies  were  "  placed  out,"  most  of 
them  with  poor  Italian  women  in  the  tenements, 
where  conditions  seemed  far  less  favorable  than 
at  the  hospital.  But  the  babies  lived.^  That  Is 
the  universal  experience. 

Parental  responsibility  is  not  to  be  dispensed 
with,  then,  and  its  maintenance  makes  It  important 
that  the  marriage  should  be  as  enduring  as  pos- 
sible. Here  we  encounter  that  most  perplexing 
of  problems,  divorce.  Will  the  Socialist  State 
follow  the  example  of  the  Japanese  and  permit  the 

1  Cf.  John  Spargo,  T/ie  Bitter  Cry  of  the  Children,  p.  233. 


264  Applied  Socialism 

dissolution  of  the  marriage  contract  at  the  will  of 
both  parties,  or  will  it  be  as  hostile  to  divorce  as 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church?  Here  it  must  be 
frankly  confessed  there  is  little  in  the  Socialist  phi- 
losophy upon  which  we  can  predicate  an  answer. 
Beyond  the  fact  that  the  Socialist  philosophy 
points  clearly  to  the  very  definite  interest  of  so- 
ciety in  the  stability  of  marriage,  there  is  little 
or  nothing  to  guide  us.  This  is  not  to  the 
discredit  of  Socialism.  We  are  simply  called 
upon  to  face  the  fact  that  the  citizens  of  the 
future  society  must  solve  the  problem  for  them- 
selves, in  the  light  of  their  own  experience  and 
needs. 

Most  Socialist  writers  upon  this  question  have 
taken  it  for  granted  that  divorce  will  be  made 
very  easy  in  Socialist  society,  so  that  the  marriage 
bond  will  be  a  very  slender  and  tenuous  thing,  di- 
vorces being  granted  for  almost  any  and  every 
cause  of  dissatisfaction.  If  that  is  a  correct  fore- 
cast, it  need  not  alarm  us  unduly,  for  in  truth  we 
have  practically  reached  that  condition  in  con- 
temporary American  life.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  are  some  Socialist  writers  who  repudiate 
this  view.  Thus  Macdonald  suggests  the  possi- 
bility of  denying  divorce  altogether:  "  I  can  im- 
agine a  time  when,  the  marriage  choice  being  ab- 
solutely one  of  free  will  and  the  stability  of  family 
life   having  proved  itself  to   be   essential  to  the 


Socialism  and  the  Family  265 

stability  of  State  life,  the  Socialist  State  will  de- 
cline to  recognize  divorce  altogether  as  being  too 
subversive  to  its  policy."  ^ 

Even  our  very  liberal  friend,  M.  Georges  Ren- 
ard,  who  believes  that  divorce  should  be  made 
easy,  and  the  marriage  contract  made  terminable 
at  the  wish  of  both  parties,  or  even  of  one  of 
them,  would  institute  "  legal  delays,  which  will 
serve  as  precautions  against  too  hasty  action,"  ^ 
Probably  most  Socialists  would  agree  with  Anton 
Menger  that  the  popular  will  in  every  country 
would  reject  any  form  of  "  Free  Love  "  or  sex 
communism,  and  firmly  maintain  the  present 
form  of  marriage,  which,  however,  must  not  be  in- 
dissoluble, as  with  the  Roman  Catholics,  but 
terminable,  as  in  the  Protestant  marriage  law,  on 
important  grounds.^  But,  as  stated  above,  this 
is  not  a  necessary  deduction  from  the  fundamental 
principles  of  Socialism. 

In  this  connection  it  is  pertinent  to  suggest  that 
the  problem  will  not  be  as  formidable  as  it  appears 
to  us  to-day.  The  economic  causes  to  which  a 
very  large  proportion  of  present  day  divorces  are 
due  would  of  necessity  disappear  to  a  large  ex- 
tent, if  not  altogether.  Not  until  we  rid  society 
of  the  debased  marriage,  whether  it  be  that  of  the 

1  J.  Ramsay  Macdonald,  M.  P.,  SodaUsm,  p.  68. 

2  Georges  Renard,  Le  Socialisme  a  I'  CEuvre,  p.  422. 
^  Neue  Staatslehre,  p.  132. 


266  Applied  Socialism 

poor  woman  who  marries  a  man  she  does  not  love 
in  order  to  escape  the  drudgery  and  uncertainty  of 
the  factory  or  the  shameful  servitude  of  the  street, 
or  that  of  the  society  woman  who  marries  for 
title  or  fortune,  shall  we  know  anything  of  the 
sufficiency  of  love  to  secure  and  maintain  real 
monogamy. 

For  marriage  in  the  Socialist  State  will  be  based 
upon  monogamy,  the  union  of  one  man  to  one 
woman.  Sex  communism,  the  so-called  "  complex 
marriage  "  of  the  Perfectionists  and  similar  sects, 
is  impossible,  unthinkable.  This  view,  again,  is 
not  a  necessary  deduction  from  the  fundamentals 
of  Socialist  philosophy.  It  is  based  rather  upon 
the  observed  facts  and  tendencies  of  social  evolu- 
tion. The  real  argument  against  polygamy,  pol- 
yandry and  group  marriage  is  not  a  moral  one. 
Most  peoples  have  passed  through  group  marriage 
in  the  course  of  their  evolution,  and  many  peoples 
have,  for  considerable  periods  of  time,  been  po- 
lygamous. These  forms  of  organization  of  the 
sex  relation  have  been  the  necessary  outcome  of 
economic  conditions  and,  therefore,  considered 
highly  moral.  When  Jan  of  Leyden  introduced 
polygamy  into  Munster,  for  example,  the  fact 
that  he  resorted  to  the  Old  Testament  for  his 
argument  in  favor  of  the  system  does  not  suffice 
to  hide  the  fact  that  the  excess  of  the  female 
population  in  the  city  made  polygamy  necessary, 


Socialism  and  the  Fatnily  267 

under  the  then  existing  modes  of  production.^ 
The  real  argument  against  polygamy,  group  mar- 
riage, and  similar  forms  of  family  organization  is 
that  they  belong  to  outgrown  stages  of  economic 
development. 

The  whole  trend  of  evolution  is  toward  mo- 
nogamy and  away  from  polygamy,  and  polyandry 
and  group  marriage.  Engels  is  perfectly  right  in 
his  conclusion  that  the  raising  of  woman  to  a  plane 
of  economic  independence  and  equality  with  man 
would  result  in  a  greater  degree  of  monogamy.^ 
Even  If  the  elected  representatives  of  the  Socialist 
State  In  some  frenzied  outburst  should  legalize 
"  Free  Love,"  and  sweep  away  all  the  laws  and 
religious  sanctions  of  the  present  marriage  system, 
they  could  not  build  polygamy  or  "  Free  Love  " 
upon  the  economic  foundations  of  Socialist  society. 
Menger  very  justly  and  wisely  observes  that 
"  There  are  so  many  defects  associated  with  free 
love  that  the  masses  of  the  people  would  them- 
selves refuse  to  permit  it,  even  if  In  the  course  of 
events  all  those  political  and  ecclesiastical  forces 
which  buttress  the  present  monogamic  system  had 
been  condemned  to  silence."  ^ 

1  Cf.  Kautsky,  Communism  in  Central  Europe  in  the  Time 
of  the  Reformation,  pp.  262-278;  Bax,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the 
Anabaptists,  pp.  203-211. 

-  Friedrich  Engels,  Origin  of  the  Family,  Private  Property 
and  the  State,  Chap.  III. 

^Neue  Staatslehre,  p.  132. 


268  Applied  Socialism 

Around  the  monogamic  marriage  will  develop 
the  private  household.  Why  should  we  assume 
communal  dwellings,  glorified  barracks,  akin  to 
our  New  York  apartment  hotels,  to  be  necessary 
under  Socialism?  There  was  some  excuse  for  this 
assumption  in  Fourier's  day.  The  amount  of  hard 
and  disagreeable  labor  Involved  In  caring  for  an 
ordinary  household  led  naturally  to  the  suggestion 
of  cooperative  households.  But  the  Invention  of 
numerous  electric  appliances  for  doing  housework 
has  opened  up  wonderful  possibilities  of  which 
Fourier  and  his  contemporaries  could  not  dream. 
There  Is  no  reason  why  the  work  of  the  average 
household  should  be  other  than  a  light,  agreeable 
and  recreative  occupation  for  a  normal,  healthy 
woman.  No  one  who  has  attended  one  of  the 
great  exhibitions  of  domestic  appliances  can  fail 
to  see  a  possible  solution  for  the  problems  of  do- 
mestic drudgery  and  service.  We  have  moved  far 
and  fast  since  Mrs.  Besant,  In  the  Fabian  Essays, 
sneered  at  the  "  old-fashioned  cottages  "  and  hailed 
*'  large  dwellings  "  as  a  solution  of  the  problem 
of  the  housewife. 

The  individual  home  is  better  than  the  best 
communal  establishment,  and  there  Is  no  reason 
why  It  should  not  flourish  under  Socialism.  A 
glorified  Waldorf-Astoria  Is  inferior  to  a  simple 
cottage  with  an  old-fashioned  garden,  alike  from 
the  point  of  view  of  family  felicity  and  the  de- 


Socialism  and  the  Family  269 

velopment  of  individuality.  Of  course,  there  are 
many  details  of  housework  which  might  with  ad- 
vantage be  done  outside  the  home  by  collective 
agencies.  Laundry  work  Is  already  done  outside 
by  commercial  agencies,  and  could  be  easily  social- 
ized. There  is  no  reason  why  the  heating  of 
homes  should  not  be  done  by  collective  agencies  as 
the  lighting  of  homes  now  Is  In  so  many  places,  and 
by  the  same  wonderful  force,  electricity.  Win- 
dows in  the  business  section  of  our  cities,  and  to 
some  extent  in  the  residential  districts,  are  cleaned 
by  professional  cleaners.  There  Is  no  good  reason 
why  this  should  not  be  a  collective  service  under 
the  management  of  the  public  authorities.  In- 
deed, the  possibilities  of  using  the  collective  organi- 
zation of  society  and  the  new  inventions  to  pre- 
serve the  private  family  and  the  separate  home 
are  almost  unlimited. 

The  demand  for  the  economic  independence  of 
woman  carries  with  it  the  obligation  to  labor.  The 
Socialist  ideal  Is  not  a  sex  parasitism.  The  obli- 
gation to  labor  will  rest  equally  upon  men  and 
women.  But  equal  obligation  to  labor  does  not 
Imply  obligation  to  perform  identical  services.  In 
his  Letter  to  Women,  M.  Renard  says:  "  Never 
allow  yourselves  to  forget  that  your  ideal  is  not 
an  imaginary  equality  with  man,  but  a  legitimate 
equivalence  with  him.  That  means,  that  In  the 
family,  as  in  society,  you  will  have  a  place  which 


270  Applied  Socialism 

Is  as  high  and  as  wide  as  his,  though  a  different 
place."  ^  Here,  once  more,  capitalism  has  paved 
the  way  for  the  Socialist  State.  Women  work,  side 
by  side  with  men  in  factories,  stores  and  offices; 
they  enter  all  the  professions.  The  self-supporting 
woman  is  not  an  imaginative  being;  a  prophecy 
of  an  uncertain  and  more  or  less  remote  future. 
She  is  already  here,  an  impressive  and  command- 
ing figure.  There  will  be  no  return  to  the  old 
days  of  helpless  parasitic  dependence  —  even 
though  some  Socialists  in  their  denunciations  of 
present  conditions  seem  to  believe  that  it  is  wrong 
for  women  to  work  anywhere  outside  of  the  nur- 
sery or  the  kitchen. 

But  what  of  woman  when  she  marries?  It  is 
easy  to  understand  that  the  unmarried  woman  will 
find  a  legitimate  place  in  the  organized  industrial 
life.  Perhaps,  too,  we  can  include  the  married 
woman  who  is  childless  with  her  unmarried  sister. 
But  the  married  woman  who  is  engaged  in  the  per- 
formance of  the  duties  of  motherhood,  child-bear- 
ing and  child-raising,  must  be  considered  as  belong- 
ing to  a  quite  distinct  category.  Her  position 
must,  therefore,  be  separately  considered.  We 
cannot  contemplate  the  possibility  of  a  Socialist 
society  perpetuating  that  abominable  evil  of  pres- 
ent society,  the  imposition  of  double  labor  upon 
large  numbers  of  women,  as  wage-earner  in  the 

1  Georges  Renard,  Lettre  aux  Femmes,  Paris,  Giard  et  Briere. 


Socialism  and  the  Family  271 

factory  and  as  wife  and  mother  in  the  home.  The 
woman  who  cares  for  her  child  or  children  performs 
as  useful  and  necessary  a  service  to  the  State  as 
any.  No  further  labor,  outside  the  home,  could 
be  justly  demanded  from  her. 

But  what  of  her  economic  independence?  Will 
she  receive  a  definite  income  from  the  State,  or  be 
as  now  dependent  upon  the  wages  of  her  husband? 
We  may  independently  hazard  a  guess,  but  it  will 
be  no  more.  The  Socialist  philosophy  does  not 
i  lead  to  any  particular  plan.  Nor  can  we  say  with 
assurance  that  the  solution  of  the  problem  is  indi- 
cated by  any  set  of  observed  facts  or  tendencies. 
At  best  the  wisest  of  us  can  only  guess  for  himself, 
and  set  his  guess  beside  the  guesses  of  other  indi- 
vidual Socialists,  such  as  Bebel,  Morris,  Menger, 
Renard  and  Wells.  We  cross  here  the  borderland 
of  Utopia.  Our  justification  —  if  justification  we 
need  —  lies  in  the  fact  that  we  can  thus  best  em- 
phasize the  important  truth  which  so  many  of  our 
critics  do  not  perceive,  namely,  that  for  all  such 
guesses  no  one  is  responsible  except  their  authors. 
A  favorite  solution  of  the  problem  before  us  is 
that  maternity  will  be  endowed  by  the  State.  The 
childless  wife,  it  is  predicted,  will  work  outside  the 
home,  just  as  though  she  were  unmarried.  The 
labor  involved  in  housekeeping  would,  in  the 
absence  of  children,  be  a  negligible  quantity,  gladly 
performed  and  amply  recompensed  by  the  advan- 


272  Applied  Socialism 

tages  of  married  life.  The  State  will  endow 
motherhood,  giving  a  definite  sum  for  each  child 
born  and  a  regular  salary  for  the  care  of  the  chil- 
dren during  the  age  of  dependence,  with  a  pension 
after  the  children  have  passed  beyond  the  need  of 
maternal  care  and  guidance.  This  is  the  ideal 
which  Mr.  Wells  has  slvetched  with  a  good  deal  of 
naive  assurance.^ 

All  this  is  very  simple,  in  a  way,  as  Utopias  are 
apt  to  be.  Personally,  I  find  it  as  difficult  and 
repellent  as  its  opposite,  "  Free  love."  If  "  Free 
Love  "  is  the  Scylla  of  individualistic  selfishness, 
State  endowed  and  wage-paid  motherhood  is  the 
Charybdis  of  bureaucratic  control.^  The  State  will 
hardly  consent  to  bear  the  burden  unless  it  controls 
procreation  to  a  degree  that  is  incompatible  with  a 
free,  democratic  society.^  Mr.  Wells,  indeed, 
recognizes  that  State  control  of  procreation  is  the 
corollary  of  the  payment  and  endowment  of 
motherhood.  In  this  he  follows  the  example  of 
Karl  Pearson:  "If  the  State  is  to  guarantee 
wages,  it  is  bound  in  self-protection  to  provide 
that  no  person  shall  be  born  without  its  consent. 
The  State  is  to  sanction  the  number  of  births;  all 
others  are  immoral,  because   anti-social. 

1  Cf.  H.  G.  Wells,  Socialism  and  the  Family. 
-Ci.  Stewart  Headlam,  The  Socialist's  Church,  p.  51. 
■■'  Macdonald,    Socialism    and    Government,    Vol.    II,    p.    148, 
argues  this  with  great  force. 


Socialism  and  the  Family  273 

An  unsanctioned  birth  would  receive  no  recogni- 
tion from  the  State,  and  in  time  of  overpopula- 
tion it  might  be  needful  to  punish,  positively  or 
negatively,  both  father  and  mother."  ^ 

We  may  rest  assured  that  there  Is  no  Immediate 
danger  of  the  realization  of  this  hideous  bureau- 
cracy. If  Socialism  were  a  plan  to  be  imposed 
upon  society  by  a  powerful  ruling  class,  as  the 
Jesuits  imposed  their  modification  of  Campanel- 
ia's  Communistic  Utopia  upon  the  natives  of 
Paraguay,  such  a  scheme  might  be  tried  and  might 
succeed  until  the  people  had  developed  the  intel- 
ligence, initiative  and  strength  to  free  themselves. 
A  free  democracy  will  not  forge  for  itself  such 
galling  chains.  It  Is  far  more  likely  that  the  wife 
will  depend  upon  her  husband's  earnings,  very 
much  as  she  does  to-day.  Menger  ^  suggests  this 
"  with  fear  and  trembling  "  as  It  were.  Would 
not  that  involve  the  dependence  of  the  wife  upon 
the  husband?  The  question  at  once  suggests  It- 
self. 

But  the  reply  is  as  obvious  as  the  question. 
The  wife  of  the  wage-earner  of  to-day,  who  keeps 
house,  cooks,  and  otherwise  cares  for  the  comfort 
and  health  of  her  husband  is  not  a  dependent  in 
any  parasitic  sense.     She  is  rather  a  co-earner  of 

1  Karl  Pearson,  Socialism  and  Sex,  quoted  by  Barker,  British 
Socialism,  p.  347. 

^  Neue  Staatslehre,  p.  134. 


274  Applied  Socialism 

the  family  income.  If  its  division  were  practica- 
ble, if  the  ordinary  wage-earner's  income  were  not 
so  small  that  its  division  would  be  ridiculous,  it 
ought  to  be  divided  to  give  the  woman  her  well- 
earned  equal  share.  Among  the  professional 
classes  to-day  it  is  by  no  means  rare  to  find  the 
arrangement  which  sets  aside  a  certain  portion  of 
the  total  income  for  the  household  expenses  and 
support  of  the  children,  the  remainder  being 
equally  divided  between  husband  and  wife.  Is 
there  any  good  reason  why  such  an  arrangement 
should  not,  or  could  not,  be  made  a  legal  condition 
of  marriage  in  the  Socialist  State?  Such  a  plan 
has  at  least  the  merit  of  avoiding  the  frightful 
bureaucracy  implied  in  the  scheme  of  making 
motherhood  a  profession  controlled  by  the  State. 
Likewise,  it  has  the  merit  of  being  foreshadowed 
in  the  progressive  sections  of  modern  society. 
To  that  extent,  it  is  something  more  than  a  mere 
guess,  an  idle  dream. 

We  have  returned  from  Utopia  to  the  realm 
of  reality  I 


X 

SOCIALISM   AND    INTELLECTUAL    SERVICE 


NOT  long  ago,  a  young  Socialist  wrote 
to  the  editor  of  a  leading  party  organ 
presenting  a  difficulty  which  greatly  per- 
plexed him,  as  it  has  perplexed  thousands  of 
other  students.  How  will  the  Socialist  State  deal 
with  the  intellectual  workers;  will  they  be  paid 
the  same  wages  as  ordinary  manual  laborers  and 
compelled  to  work  the  same  hours, ^  and,  if  so, 
who  will  determine  which  man  shall  be  a  brain- 
worker  and  which  an  ordinary  manual  laborer? 

The  reply  he  received  amply  testifies  to  the 
extreme  crudity  of  much  of  our  present-day  Social- 
ist thought.  In  effect,  the  reply  was:  "  You  must 
remember  that  Socialism  will  abolish  all  classes. 
Therefore,  under  Socialism  there  will  be  no  intel- 
lectual workers  and  no  manual  workers.  Every 
one  will  have  to  do  a  fair  share  of  the  productive 
work,  so  that  no  one  will  need  to  do  manual  labor 

1  It  IS  unnecessary  to  discuss  the  question  of  remuneration  as 
applied  to  intellectual  service  in  this  chapter.  The  subject  is 
sufficiently  discussed  in  chapters  VII  and  VIII. 

275 


276  Applied  Socialism 

for  more  than  a  few  hours  each  day.  That  will 
give  every  individual  a  chance  to  develop  all  his 
intellectual  faculties."  The  editor  was  evidently 
guided  by  "  authority."  Unfortunately,  Marx 
had  left  no  answer  to  be  quoted  as  scriptural 
authority  to  the  Faithful,  but,  happily,  there  was 
Bebel,  a  mighty  prophet.  Many  years  ago,  Bebel 
discussed  the  subject  in  his  famous  study  of 
JVoman  and  Socialism.  In  a  purely  Utopian 
spirit,  he  described  how,  in  the  Socialist  regime, 
every  man  and  woman  would  be  called  upon  to 
do  a  given  amount  of  work,  either  in  industry 
or  agriculture,  and  how  the  intellectual  needs  of 
society  would  be  abundantly  met  by  the  use  of 
the  leisure  and  cultural  advantages  which  such  a 
life  must  afford.  With  a  working  day  of  three 
hours  or  less,  what  need  of  making  a  profession 
of  art  or  of  science?  Our  editor  was  piously  re- 
peating to  the  anxious  inquirer  the  gospel  accord- 
ing to  Bebel ! 

Considered  as  a  solution  of  the  problem  pre- 
sented, the  reply  had  a  two-fold  significance.  In 
the  first  place,  it  is  entirely  Utopian  and  unscien- 
tific. It  is  not  only  un-Marxian,  but  anti-Marx- 
ian. It  is  not  a  forecast  based  upon  careful  ob- 
servation of  the  tendencies  of  social  evolution,  nor 
is  it  a  necessary  deduction  from  any  fundamen- 
tal principle  of  Socialist  philosophy.  It  is  a 
prophet's  vision,  hung  in  air,  a  thing  of  dreams. 


Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     277 

If  It  Is  a  necessary  deduction  from  a  fundamental 
principle,  that  principle  Is  not  of  modern  scientific 
Socialism,  but  of  the  dreamy  Communism  and 
"  equality  "  of  the  Utopian  mystics.  It  does  not 
take  into  account,  but  blindly  runs  counter  to,  one 
of  the  most  significant  and  powerful  tendencies  of 
economic  evolution,  the  tendency  to  specialization 
of  function  which  Marx  so  clearly  perceived  even 
In  his  day.  How  little  of  Marx  our  most  vocifer- 
ous "  Marxists  "  have  absorbed ! 

In  the  second  place,  the  reply  Is  significant  as 
an  Illustration  of  that  perverted  and  distorted  view 
of  the  essential  meaning  of  the  class-struggle 
theory  which  manifests  Itself  In  a  contempt  for 
culture  and  learning,  and  a  demagogic  glorifica- 
tion, not  merely  of  the  manual  laborer,  but  of 
those  very  limitations  and  disadvantages  from 
which  he  must  be  liberated  before  Socialism  can 
succeed.  It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  here  the 
story  of  the  sinister  part  which  antl-Intellectualism 
has  played  In  the  Socialist  movement.^  Suffice  it 
to  say  that  it  Is  the  child  of  demagogy  and  the 
father  of  schism  and  disruption.  Antl-Intellectu- 
ahsm  is  not  a  democratic  doctrine.  The  attitude 
of  the  truly  class-conscious  proletariat  toward  edu- 
cation and  Intellectual  leadership  Is  one  of  genuine 

1  For  this  see  John  Spargo,  Sidelights  on  Contemporary  So- 
cialism, pp.  67-106,  and  John  Spargo,  Karl  Marx,  His  Life  and 
Work,  pp.  96-97,  276-277,  300,  307. 


278  Applied  Socialism 

admiration  and  respect.  The  whole  history  of 
democratic  movements  generally,  and  of  the  So- 
cialist movement  in  particular,  proves  this.  The 
contempt  for  learning  and  hostility  to  intellectual 
leadership  which  sometimes  manifest  themselves 
in  the  Socialist  ranks  are  not  evidences  of  pro- 
letarian class  consciousness.  "  We  are  armed 
with  the  complete  culture  of  the  century!  "  cried 
Lassalle.  The  true  Socialist  honors  education 
and  demands  that  all  the  means  of  education  and 
culture  be  socialized.  In  the  meantime  he  hails 
with  gladness  those  leaders  like  Marx,  Engels, 
Lassalle,  Liebknecht,  Jaures,  Hyndman,  Kautsky, 
and  others,  who  bring  to  the  movement  the  su- 
perior service  of  trained  intellectual  power. 

We  are  specially  concerned  here  and  now  with 
the  Utopian  nature  of  the  suggestion  that  the  So- 
cialist State  will  do  away  with  the  specialization  of 
functions  from  which  society  has  gained  so  much, 
that  it  will  not  tolerate  the  exclusive  devotion  of 
some  men  to  intellectual  service,  but  will  insist 
upon  every  Individual  doing  manual  labor  for  a 
given  number  of  hours  each  day.  What  an  in- 
finite and  incalculable  loss  to  the  world  such  an 
industrial  economy  would  involve  !  Fourier's  fan- 
tastic vision  of  lions  pulling  heavy  wagons  and 
tame  whales  pulling  becalmed  sailing-ships  is  not 
more  absurd! 

Democracy  does  not  Imply  the  equal  fitness  of 


Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     279 

all  men  for  all  tasks.  Still  less  does  it  imply  that 
men  of  special  talents  and  gifts  must  devote  their 
time  in  whole  or  in  part  to  labor  which  other  men, 
not  possessing  those  gifts,  could  do  equally  well. 
Imagine  Karl  Marx  climbing  tenement  stairs  dis- 
tributing Socialist  leaflets  and  advertising  cards 
from  door  to  door!  William  Morris  selling 
copies  of  Justice,  the  Socialist  paper,  upon  the 
streets  of  London  may  appear  heroic  from  a  cer- 
tain point  of  view,  but  he  might  have  served  the 
Socialist  cause  far  more  effectively  by  using  his 
wonderful  talents  which,  while  he  was  doing  what 
the  most  illiterate  costermonger  could  have  done 
equally  well,  were  buried  in  a  napkin.  The  So- 
cialist State  will  be  too  solicitous  of  its  own 
interest,  too  deeply  imbued  with  social  con- 
sciousness, to  compel  its  Metchnikoffs,  its  Edi- 
sons,  its  Darwins  and  its  other  intellectual 
servants  to  spend  any  of  their  precious  time  and 
strength  plowing  fields,  tending  machinery,  or 
bookkeeping. 

Socialism  rests  upon  evolution.  Capitalism  has 
developed  great  productive  agencies  which  were 
unheard  of  and  undreamed  of  before.  We  who 
are  Socialists  recognize  the  great  part  which 
Capitalism  has  played  in  human  progress.  No- 
where in  the  literature  of  the  world  can  we  find  a 
nobler  eulogy  upon  the  material  and  spiritual  gains 
to  society  as  a  result  of  capitalist  development  than 


28o  Applied  Socialism 

that  contained  in  the  Communist  Manifesto.  It 
is  the  key-note  of  our  faith  and  hope,  as  evolution- 
ists, that  all  the  great  powers  developed  by  cap- 
italist society  will  be  inherited  by  the  Socialist 
society  of  the  future.  And  among  the  greatest 
legacies  of  the  capitalist  epoch  to  the  Socialist 
epoch  a  foremost  place  must  be  given  to  a  system 
of  production  based  upon  specialization  of  func- 
tion. It  is  not  at  all  conceivable  that  in  a  vain 
effort  to  attain  "  equality  "  the  citizens  of  the  So- 
cialist State  will  destroy  that  system  of  specializa- 
tion. They  are  far  more  likely  to  improve  it,  and 
to  find  it  socially  advantageous  to  greatly  increase 
the  number  of  those  devoted  exclusively  to  intel- 
lectual tasks. 

Marx  himself  has  pointed  to  the  fact  that  the 
efficiency  of  capitalist  production  is  greatly  in- 
creased by  the  specialization  of  function,  and, 
especially,  by  the  development  of  a  special  class 
of  directors  of  industry.  The  "  collective  power 
of  masses  "  requires  directing  authority  to  be  effi- 
cient. So  there  is  developed  "  a  special  kind  of 
wage  laborer  "  whose  "  established  and  exclusive 
function  "  is  the  work  of  supervision  and  direction. 
This  work  of  direction  and  supervision  is  as  neces- 
sary, he  argues,  as  the  work  of  the  conductor  is  to 
an  orchestra.^  Production  under  Socialism  will 
still  depend  upon  the  "  collective  power  of  masses," 

1  Karl  Marx,  Capital.  Vol.  I,  Part  IV,  Ch.  XIII. 


Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     281 

and  will  still  require  supervision  and  direction  If 
the  maximum  of  efficiency  is  to  be  secured. 

Starting  with  a  highly  developed  productive 
system,  the  supreme  task  of  the  Socialist  State  will 
be,  not  the  mere  maintenance  of  its  efficiency,  but 
the  greatest  possible  Increase  of  that  efficiency. 
If  the  standards  of  material  comfort  are  to  be 
materially  raised,  and  leisure  greatly  extended, 
there  must  be  increased  productivity.  The  tech- 
nical processes  of  production  must  be  constantly 
studied  and  Improved.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
reason  for  supposing  that  this  important  work  will 
be  left  to  chance,  to  the  voluntary  effort  of  men 
who  are  compelled  to  contribute  their  share  of 
manual  labor.  It  Is  far  more  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  the  work  will  be  systematically  organ- 
ized, that  specialists  will  make  It  their  exclusive 
function. 

Thus  the  direction  of  industry.  Including  in  that 
term  the  improvement  of  the  technical  processes  of 
production,  will  itself  Involve  the  employment  of 
a  large  body  of  Intellectual  workers,  as  distin- 
guished from  ordinary  manual  workers.  They 
will  be  intellectual  servants.  The  method  of  their 
selection  offers  no  great  difficulty.  There  is  no 
reason  why  the  selection  could  not  be  made  as  in 
the  civil  service  of  to-day,  by  competitive  tests. 
Gronlund's  forecast  of  the  Socialist  regime  ^  with 

1  Gronlund,  The  New  Economy,  p.  48. 


282  Applied  Socialism 

its  subdivision  of  labor  and  specialization  of  func- 
tion, governed  by  something  similar  to  our  pres- 
ent civil  service,  is  far  more  scientific  than  the 
absurd  notion  of  destroying  all  specialization  of 
function  and  compelling  each  individual  to  per- 
form a  given  amount  of  manual  labor  each  day. 

Quite  apart  from  the  direction  of  industry  and 
the  development  of  increased  efficiency,  the  So- 
cialist State  will  employ  a  large  body  of  intellectual 
social  servants.  Let  us  consider  one  department 
of  social  activity  only,  the  prevention  and  cure  of 
disease.  Not  only  is  it  too  wildly  absurd  for  any- 
thing short  of  comic  opera  to  suppose  that  the 
medical  service  will  be  so  conducted  that  the  med- 
ical man  will  be  compelled  to  give  so  many  hours 
each  day  to  manual  labor,  but  It  is  quite  as  absurd 
to  suppose  that  medical  research  and  experimen- 
tation will  not  be  specialized;  that  the  Pasteurs 
and  Von  Behrings  of  the  future  will  have  to  per- 
form each  day  their  share  in  the  ordinary  routine 
of  medical  practice,  prescribing  for  colds,  diag- 
nosing infantile  digestive  troubles,  and  so  on,  de- 
pending upon  their  leisure  time  for  opportunity  to 
Investigate  and  experiment. 

We  have  already  progressed  beyond  that  stage. 
There  is  hardly  a  government  In  the  clvlhzed 
world  which  has  not  in  its  employ  numerous  men 
of  science,  who  are  set  apart  for  the  purpose  of 
studying  the  great  problems  of  medicine,  bacterl- 


Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     283 

ology  and  sanitation.  The  public  Health  and 
Marine  Hospital-Service  of  the  United  States  with 
its  well-equipped  laboratories  is  an  illustration  of 
the  method  by  which  the  national  government,  like 
all  the  governments  of  the  great  civilized  nations, 
assumes  responsibility  for  the  solution  of  scientific 
problems  which  relate  to  the  health  of  its  citizens. 
In  our  States  and  our  great  cities  there  are  similar 
organizations  upon  a  smaller  scale.  A  very  large 
amount  of  our  present  understanding  of  the  origin 
of  epidemic  diseases,  and  the  means  of  preventing 
and  combating  them,  has  been  derived  from  so- 
cialized investigation  and  research. 

It  is  a  well  recognized  fact  that  there  is  an 
urgent  need  for  a  great  extension  of  this  sort  of 
service.  Already  private  philanthropy  is  being 
relied  upon  to  supplement  the  work  of  the  State. 
Institutions  such  as  the  Rockefeller  Institute  for 
Medical  Research  are  resulting  In  marvelous  ad- 
vances in  the  conquest  of  disease,  and  clearly 
point  to  the  far-reaching  extension  of  collectively 
organized  research  and  experiment  in  the  Socialist 
State.  To  suppose  otherwise,  we  must  abandon 
our  claim  that  Socialism  is  a  step  forward,  and 
freely  admit  the  counter-claim  of  our  enemies  that 
it  is  a  retrogressive  step  which  we  are  trying  to 
Induce  society  to  take.  Too  much  stress  cannot  be 
laid  upon  the  fact  that  Socialism  presupposes  the 
conservation  of  every  gain  made  by  mankind  in  the 


284  Applied  Socialism 

centuries  of  evolution.  We  shall  destroy  nothing 
of  social  value,  abandon  no  height  of  culture  or 
productive  efficiency  —  not  even  for  the  sake  of 
equality! 

We  have  already  learned  that  the  economic 
value  of  such  discoveries  as  those  made  by  Robert 
Koch,  Pasteur,  Metchnikoff,  Behring  and  thou- 
sands of  less  known  men,  is  infinitely  greater  than 
they  could  produce  by  any  amount  of  manual 
labor.  The  hook-worm  disease  costs  our  Southern 
States  many  millions  of  dollars  each  year.  It  is 
estimated  that  the  economic  loss  to  South  Caro- 
lina alone  is  not  less  than  thirty  millions  of  dollars 
each  year.^  What  we  knoAv  of  the  disease,  of 
curing  and  preventing  it,  we  know  mainly  as  a 
result  of  the  studies  made  by  Dr.  Stiles  and  others 
under  the  direction  of  the  United  State  Public 
Health  and  Marine-Hospital  Service.  Dr.  Stiles 
believes  that  in  a  generation  the  disease  could  be 
stamped  out  through  the  wise  expenditure  of  two 
millions  of  dollars  or  less.  Even  now  we  are  in- 
telligent enough  to  socialize  the  intellectual  gifts 
of  men  like  Dr.  Stiles  by  making  them  public 
servants,  and  we  may  be  assured  that  the  Socialist 
State  will  carry  this  socialization  of  intellectual 
service  a  great  deal  farther  than  has  ever  yet  been 
attempted.     The  service  of  such  men  will,  as  now, 

1  Cf.  Irving  Fisher,  Report  on  National  Vitality,  Its  Waste 
and  Conservation,  p.  122. 


Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     285 

be  performed  in  the  laboratory,  and  not  in  the  fac- 
tory or  the  counting  room. 

Here  again,  the  Socialist  State  will  not  begin 
de  novo  and  devise  a  method  of  selecting  its  intel- 
lectual servants,  with  nothing  to  guide  it.  Already 
we  have  a  method  of  selection,  imperfect  perhaps, 
and  capable  of  great  improvement,  but  providing 
a  foundation  upon  which  to  build.  We  have  civil 
service  rules,  entrance  to  the  public  service  by 
means  of  scholarships,  or  upon  the  basis  of  meri- 
torious work  In  some  particular  branch  of  discov- 
ery, experiment  or  research.  Here,  as  in  every 
branch  of  inquiry,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the 
Socialist  State  will  not  be  an  arbitrarily  created 
thing,  but  a  development,  a  modification,  of  the 
existing  State,  attained  through  a  process  of  read- 
justment which  is  even  now  going  on.  That  pro- 
cess of  readjustment  Implies  that  the  transforma- 
tion of  the  organic  structure  of  society  will  be  a 
gradual  process. 

II 

But  what  shall  we  say  of  those  intellectual 
workers,  the  molders  of  public  opinion,  the  jour- 
nalists and  publicists  whose  work,  often  of  tre- 
mendous value,  must  frequently  take  the  form  of 
hostile  criticism  of  the  State  and  its  methods?  It 
is  easy  enough  to  conceive  that  the  State  might 
publish  books  and  periodicals  which  were  consid- 


286  Applied  Socialism 

ered  "  safe  "  and  "  sane,"  but  what  about  those 
which,  because  they  attacked  the  State,  were  con- 
sidered "  unsafe  "  and  "  insane  "  ?  Are  we  to 
contemplate  the  suppression  of  the  right  of  criti- 
cism as  the  French  writer,  Mermeix,  does  in  the 
following  words :  "  The  State,  being  the  only 
printer,  might  refuse  to  allow  the  uses  of  its 
presses  to  anti-socialist  newspapers,  to  conservative 
journals  which  seek  to  undo  the  Revolution,  as  well 
as  to  anarchial,  too-Socialist  papers,  which  might 
think  the  Revolution  incomplete.  Papers,  as  well 
as  books,  would  be  under  the  censorship.  The 
people  would  read  nothing  except  by  permission 
of  the  Government."  ^ 

It  is  very  obvious  that  nothing  could  be  further 
from  the  democratic  ideal  of  Socialism  than  the 
condition  which  the  French  writer  depicts.  It 
suggests  the  despotism  of  Czarism  against  which 
the  democratic  spirit  in  Russia  has  been  waging 
relentless  war  for  so  long.  Democracy  has  at  all 
times,  and  in  all  lands,  fought  with  much  heroism 
and  sacrifice  for  the  freedom  of  the  press  from  all 

1  Quoted  in  The  Neio  Socialism,  by  Jane  T.  Stoddart,  pp. 
152-153.     (The  italics  are  mine.     J.  S.) 

I  note,  by  the  way,  that  a  writer  in  The  Catholic  World, 
May,  1910  (p.  209),  attributes  this  statement  to  Kautsky,  while 
giving  Miss  Stoddart's  book  as  reference!  The  error  —  if 
error  it  be — is  inexcusable,  for  Miss  Stoddart  plainly  states 
that  the  words  are  cited  from  M.  Mermeix's  book,  Le  Social- 
isme,  p.  298.  Why,  one  wonders,  are  our  Catholic  critics  so 
generally  reckless  and  unreliable? 


Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     287 

forms  of  censorship.  We  think  with  pride  of 
the  heroic  fight  for  a  free  press  made  by  Henry 
Hetherington  and  his  followers  In  England  in  the 
days  of  the  Iniquitous  Stamp  Act,  and  by  the  So- 
cial Democratic  Party  of  Germany  in  later  years. 
It  is  inconceivable,  therefore,  that  a  democratic 
society  will  ever  abolish  the  sacred  right  of  free- 
dom of  publication  which  has  been  won  at  so  great 
a  sacrifice.  Every  Socialist  writer  of  note  agrees 
with  Kautsky  that  the  freedom  of  the  press,  and 
of  literary  production  generally,  is  an  essential 
condition  of  democratic  Socialism. 

But  to  declare  that  the  press  will  be  free  under 
Socialism  does  not  take  us  very  far.  As  a  pious 
declaration  of  our  hope  and  belief  It  Is  excellent. 
It  does  not,  however,  cast  any  light  upon  the  prac- 
tical problem  before  us;  It  does  not  afford  an  an- 
swer to  the  question  :  "  How  can  there  be  freedom 
of  the  press  when  Industry  Is  socialized?  "  Diffi- 
cult as  the  question  may  be,  It  Is  Important  and  we 
must  face  It  with  full  candor.  Nor  must  we  limit 
ourselves  to  the  press,  for  the  publication  of  books 
Is  quite  as  important  and  Involves  the  same  diffi- 
culties. 

Let  us  consider,  first  of  all,  the  publication  of 
books.  Organized  society  Is  already  the  great 
book-buyer  upon  which  the  publisher  for  profit 
relies.  At  first  this  may  seem  a  startling  state- 
ment, but  a  little  reflection  will  show  that  it  is  true. 


288  Applied  Socialism 

Our  big  publishers  find  their  chief  source  of  profit 
in  supplying  text-books  and  manuals  for  schools, 
colleges,  and  other  public  institutions,  and  in  sup- 
plying general  literature  to  public  libraries  and 
special  libraries  maintained  in  connection  with 
various  public  institutions.  The  socialization  of 
education  would  greatly  extend  the  influence  and 
interest  of  organized  society  in  this  respect.  All 
text-books  and  manuals  for  schools,  colleges,  uni- 
versities and  technical  institutions  would  be  pro- 
duced for  the  collectivity.  The  exceptions  would 
be  trifling  and  insignificant. 

Under  existing  conditions,  organized  society 
controls  the  publication  of  such  books  to  a  limited 
degree,  and  in  a  very  indirect  and  circuitous 
manner.  The  author  takes  his  manuscript  to  a 
publisher  and  asks  for  Its  consideration.  The 
publisher  submits  it  to  expert  advisers  and  is 
guided  by  their  report.  If  the  book  is  intended 
for  a  school  text-book  and  its  subject  Is,  let  us  say, 
history,  the  publisher  tries  to  ascertain  (i)  if  the 
book  is  accurate  and  reliable;  (2)  if  it  is  well 
adapted  for  use  as  a  text-book;  (3)  if  there  is 
likely  to  be  an  effective  demand  for  such  a  book 
In  the  event  of  its  publication.  If  he  finally  de- 
cides not  to  publish  the  book,  the  publisher  re- 
turns the  manuscript  to  the  author,  who  then  tries 
elsewhere.  If  he  tries  all  the  regular  publishing 
houses  in  vain,  the  poor  author  can  either  consign 


Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     289 

his  manuscript  to  the  flames  or  to  the  tender 
mercies  of  the  mice,  or  he  can  pubhsh  it  at  his  own 
expense. 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  publisher  accepts  the 
book.  As  soon  as  it  is  ready  for  pubHcation  the 
book  is  submitted  to  those  who  determine  what 
text-books  must  be  used  by  the  students  —  pro- 
fessors in  universities,  and  colleges,  head  teachers 
in  public  schools,  superintendents  of  education,  and 
so  on.  These  officials,  then,  constitute  the  jury 
which  ultimately  decides  the  fate  of  the  book. 
The  publisher  and  his  advisers  are,  in  the  last 
analysis,  a  sort  of  preliminary  jury,  and  their  func- 
tion Is  to  "  weed  out  "  the  impossible  productions 
and  present  the  eligible  books  to  the  jury  of  final 
selection. 

It  would  not  be  impossible  for  the  state  and 
municipal  authorities  to  dispense  with  the  private 
publisher  altogether,  and  deal  directly  with  the 
author,  paying  him  a  royalty  as  the  publisher  now 
does,  and  eliminating  the  publisher's  profit.  In 
Great  Britain,  I  believe,  all  books  used  In  the  pub- 
lic elementary  and  secondary  schools  have  to  be 
approved  by  the  Educational  Department.  That 
some  modification  of  this  method  would  be  en- 
tirely practicable,  and  the  manuscripts  approved 
by  an  official  board,  is  fairly  obvious.  In  other 
words,  just  as  now  responsible  officials  have  to 
select  and  approve  text-books  and  manuals  to  be 


290  Applied  Socialism 

used  In  schools  and  colleges,  similar  officials  could 
pass  upon  the  books  in  manuscript  and  those 
approved  could  be  published  by  the  state  or  the 
municipality  as  the  case  might  be. 

An  author  whose  work  was  rejected  by  the  offi- 
cials In  one  State  or  city  could  submit  it  to  the 
proper  authorities  in  other  States  and  cities,  and, 
if  successful,  he  could  still  have  the  privilege  of 
publishing  It  at  his  own  expense,  just  as  the  author 
must  do  to-day  under  similar  circumstances.  Even 
if  we  assume  private  printing  establishments  to  be 
forbidden  —  an  assumption  wholly  without  war- 
rant so  far  as  Socialist  principle  is  concerned  — 
there  is  no  reason  why  the  State  or  municipal 
printer  should  not  be  compelled  to  print  at  cost 
any  book,  no  matter  what  its  nature,  provided  the 
cost  of  printing  was  prepaid.  The  author  would 
be  responsible  for  any  abuses  of  the  laws  relating 
to  obscenity,  libel,  and  so  on. 

Turning  from  this  special  branch  of  literary  pro- 
duction to  general  literature,  including  novels, 
poetry,  essays,  volumes  of  sermons,  biographies, 
works  on  political  economy  and  essays  in  political 
and  literary  criticism,  we  find  society,  through  its 
extensive  library  system,  in  a  position  to  do  away 
with  the  private  publisher,  at  least  so  far  as  the 
latter  is  engaged  In  supplying  the  public  service. 
Library  boards  in  State  and  nation,  and  even  in 
large  cities,  might  have  their  literary  advisers  and 


Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     291 

publish  such  works  as  the  latter  agreed  to  recom- 
mend, paying  royalties  to  the  authors  upon  all 
copies  sold.  We  have  already  a  beginning  of 
this  sort  of  enterprise  in  the  publication  for  sale 
of  important  books  by  national,  State  and  munici- 
pal authorities. 

It  might  be  a  matter  of  civic  pride  to  publish 
the  work  of  a  local  writer  or  a  work  dealing  with 
some  matter  of  local  interest.  Mr.  Winston 
Churchill's  novels  might  appear  under  the  imprint 
of  the  Commonwealth  of  New  Hampshire  or  Mr. 
Riley's  poems  under  the  imprint  of  the  City  of 
Indianapolis.  The  author  who  found  himself 
without  honor  among  his  own  people  might  get  his 
work  accepted  In  another  city  or  another  State,  and 
so  prove  himself  to  be  like  the  prophet  of  the 
proverb,  not  without  honor,  save  In  his  own 
country.  ^ 

The  army  of  dejected  authors  with  rejected 
manuscripts  would  probably  not  be  materially  in- 
creased, and  If  It  were  the  social  loss  would  In  all 
probability  not  be  great.  It  would  be  absurd  for 
society  to  undertake  the  publication  of  every 
volume  of  "  Collected  Poems  "  and  every  sonnet 
sequence  submitted  by  ambitious  versifiers.  Local 
pride  in  some  cases  and  genuine  appreciation  of 
genius  by  the  cognoscenti  in  other  cases,  would 
probably  lead  to  the  publication  of  about  as  much 

1  Cf.  Wells,  New  Worlds  for  Old,  Ch.  XIII. 


292  Applied  Socialism 

verse,  good,  bad  and  indifferent,  as  is  published 
under  present  conditions.  Those  who  failed  to 
secure  the  acceptance  of  their  work  would  either 
remain  "  mute  and  inglorious,"  or  publish  their 
works  at  their  own  expense,  just  as  Is  done  to-day. 
They  would  —  or  could  —  enjoy  one  advantage, 
namely,  freedom  from  the  robbery  and  exploita- 
tion to  which  most  such  poets  are  now  subjected. 
They  could  get  their  printing  and  binding  done  at 
cost  and  place  their  books  on  sale  in  the  public 
stores  upon  a  commission  basis. 

All  this  is,  of  course,  suggestive  merely:  not  a 
prophecy  of  what  will  be,  but  a  hint  of  what  might 
be,  put  forward  to  show  that  the  problem  Is  by  no 
means  Insoluble.  In  his  more  youthful  days,  when 
Socialism  must  have  seemed  much  less  complex 
than  it  does  to-day,  George  Bernard  Shaw  sug- 
gested a  possible  solution  of  the  problem.  He 
assumed  the  total  disappearance  of  private  in- 
dustrial enterprise,  not,  perhaps,  through  suppres- 
sion by  law,  but  as  a  result  of  the  glorious  superior- 
ity of  publicly  owned  and  operated  industry.  No 
private  printing  presses  anywhere  existing,  all 
printing  being  done  in  the  municipal  printing  of- 
fices, Shaw  suggested  that  a  committee  of  the 
municipal  government  having  charge  of  the  print- 
ing could  be  "  left  free  to  accept  any  publication 
It  thought  valuable,  as  a  private  firm  to-day  may 
take  the  risk  of  publication,  the  arrangement  with 


Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     293 

the  author  being  purchase  outright,  or  royalty  on 
copies  sold,  in  each  case  so  much  to  be  put  to  his 
credit  at  the  communal  bank."  The  author  whose 
work  was  not  wanted  could,  Shaw  suggested,  have 
it  printed  at  cost,  the  committee  having  no  power 
to  decline  such  work.^ 

As  we  have  seen,  the  abolition  of  all  private 
Industry  is  not  an  essential  condition  of  modern, 
scientific  Socialism.  This  is  not  a  diluted  form  of 
Marxian  Socialism:  on  the  contrary,  the  strictest 
interpretation  of  Marxian  Socialism  leaves  room 
for  a  good  deal  of  private  industrial  enterprise. 
The  private  printing  press  will  not  be  impossible 
under  Socialism,  nor  is  there  any  reason  for  sup- 
posing that  the  private  production  of  books,  pam- 
phlets, newspapers,  pictures,  statues  or  other  works 
of  art  will  entirely  disappear.  To  quote  the 
words  of  Kautsky:  "A  proletarian  regime  will 
no  more  make  this  form  of  commodity  production 
impossible,  than  it  will  abolish  the  little  private 
industry  in  material  production.  Just  as  little  as 
the  needle  and  thimble,  will  brush  and  palette,  or 
Ink  and  pen  belong  to  those  means  of  production 
which  must  under  all  conditions  be  socialized,"  ^ 

It  is  quite  unnecessary,  therefore,  to  suppose 
that  under  Socialism  the  State  will  be  the  only 
publisher  and  the  only  printer,  and  that  the  politi- 

"^  Fabian  Essays,  pp.  158-159, 

2  Karl  Kautsky,  The  Social  Revolution,  p.  172. 


294  Applied  Socialism 

cal  essayist  whose  book  is  an  assault  upon  the  State 
will  be  suppressed,  or,  at  best,  only  permitted  to 
have  his  book  printed  at  his  own  expense.  Just  as 
in  ordinary  economic  production  it  is  by  no  means 
necessary  that  it  should  be  centralized  in  the  hands 
of  the  State,  production  by  municipalities,  vol- 
untary cooperative  associations  of  workers,  and,  in 
some  degree,  individual  production,  being  equally 
compatible  with  Socialist  principles,  so  here  it  is 
needless  to  assume  the  centralization  of  printing 
and  publishing  in  one  great  State  department. 
The  book  which  the  State  refused  to  publish  might 
still  be  published  by  any  city  in  which  the  views 
advanced  by  the  author  were  favored,  or  in  which 
a  large  spirit  of  tolerance  ruled  the  authorities. 
Or  it  might  be  published  by  any  cooperative  asso- 
ciation, or  any  society  formed  for  the  promotion 
of  the  principles  advanced  by  the  author. 

Under  such  conditions,  the  suppression  of  free 
criticism  would  be  impossible.  The  Henry  James 
Eclectic  Association  would  be  free  to  publish  its 
commentaries  upon  the  disputed  readings  of  the 
novels  of  Henry  James.  The  Mallock-Shaw  So- 
ciety would  be  free  to  publish  its  cryptograms  to 
prove  that  William  Hulburt  Mallock  wrote  the 
plays  ascribed  to  George  Bernard  Shaw.  The 
Society  for  the  Restoration  of  British  Rule  in 
North  America  would  be  free  to  publish  its  argu- 
ments in  the  most  dignified  Tory  form  it  chose. 


Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     29^ 

The  League  for  the  Abohtion  of  Government  and 
Collective  Control  would  be  free  to  issue  its  pam- 
phlets. 

So  much  for  the  publication  of  books.  Let  us 
turn  now  to  consider  the  publication  of  newspapers 
in  the  Socialist  State.  Originally,  the  newspaper 
was  what  its  name  suggests,  a  compendium  of  in- 
formation concerning  contemporary  happenings. 
To  that  function  was  soon  added  that  of  the  com- 
ment of  an  individual  upon  the  news.  The  pri- 
mary functions  of  a  newspaper,  as  such,  arc, 
therefore :  ( i )  the  publication  of  news  for  the 
information  of  the  reader,  and  (2)  the  publication 
of  comments,  arguments  and  criticisms  from  the 
view  point  of  the  publisher.  Socially  considered, 
these  are  the  primary  and  legitimate  functions  of 
the  newspaper.  That  they  are  functions  of  great 
importance  cannot  be  gainsaid.  Particularly  in  a 
democracy,  it  is  of  the  greatest  importance  that 
Information  should  be  complete  and  widespread, 
and  that  discussion  should  be  general,  candid  and 
public. 

The  ideal  newspaper  would  publish  all  the  news, 
as  far  as  possible,  without  any  exaggeration,  dis- 
tortion or  bias.  It  would  neither  suppress  infor- 
mation concerning  any  incident  nor  misrepresent  it 
to  the  advantage  of  the  publisher  or  to  the  disad- 
vantage of  any  person  or  persons  with  whom  the 
publisher  might  disagree.     Its  comments,  criticisms 


296  Applied  Socialism 

and  suggestions,  while  not  Impartial,  perhaps, 
would  be  fair  and  candid,  and  their  point  of  view 
would  be  openly  declared.  It  would  be  free  from 
all  suspicion  of  suppressing  or  misrepresenting  any 
fact  of  public  Interest  or  Importance,  or  of  secretly 
serving  an  interest  other  than  that  openly  avowed 
by  It.  There  could  be  no  objection  to-day,  for 
example,  to  the  publication  by  a  newspaper  of 
editorials  in  support  of  a  great  trust,  provided  that 
Instead  of  the  lying  legend,  "  An  Independent 
Newspaper,"  the  editorial  column  was  frankly 
headed,  "  Published  In  the  Interest  of  the  Steel 
Trust  " —  or  the  oil  trust,  as  the  case  might  be. 
Honest  advocacy  of  an  avowed  interest  is  admlra- 
able,  whether  it  be  the  interest  of  the  labor  union, 
the  public  service  corporation,  the  saloon  keeper 
or  the  temperance  society. 

The  typical  newspaper  of  to-day  is  not  published 
primarily  as  a  means  of  spreading  information  or 
as  an  honest  contribution  to  free  discussion,  how- 
ever. It  is  a  great  profit-making  enterprise. 
Where  It  is  not  published  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
fending and  promoting  special  interests  by  mis- 
leading the  public  by  the  suppression  and  distortion 
of  the  news  of  the  day,  and  cunning  arguments 
based  upon  misrepresentation,  it  Is  so  dependent 
upon  the  Income  from  advertisements  for  Its  ex- 
istence that  It  dare  not  antagonize  the  great  finan- 
cial and  commercial  interests  of  the  advertisers, 


Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     297 

either  In  its  news  columns  or  its  editorial  discussion. 
The  prostitution  of  the  press  is  the  most  character- 
istic feature  of  its  present  existence. 

That  the  soclahzation  of  industry  will  not  en- 
tirely do  away  with  advertising  is  fairly  obvious. 
Even  if  all  production  and  exchange  were  central- 
ized in  the  hands  of  the  State,  it  would  probably 
still  be  socially  advantageous  to  have  some  system 
of  advertising  the  goods  to  be  found  in  the  public 
stores.  Such  advertising  is  "  news  "  in  the  truest 
sense  of  the  word.  It  is  equally  evident,  however, 
that  the  elaborate  and  costly  advertisements  of 
to-day  would  disappear  with  the  capitalist  owner- 
ship of  the  great  socially  necessary  means  of 
production  and  exchange.  And  with  the  disap- 
pearance of  the  system  of  capitalist  production  and 
exchange,  and  the  extensive  advertising  it  involves, 
the  servile  and  parasitic  press  would  also  disap- 
pear. Individuals  and  groups  might  still  publish 
papers  for  the  promotion  of  special  political, 
philosophical  and  intellectual  interests,  but  such 
papers  would  be  vastly  different  from  the  news- 
papers of  to-day  which  are  pubhshed  in  defense  of 
the  Interests  of  a  dominant  economic  class,  or, 
where  that  is  not  the  case,  hmlted  in  their  freedom 
by  their  dependence  upon  that  class  for  the  adver- 
tising which  alone  enables  them  to  exist. 

While  a  great  many  Socialists  believe  that  In  the 
Socialist  State  the  publication  of  news  will  be  a 


298  Applied  Socialism 

collective  function,  there  are  very  few  who  seri- 
ously believe  that  the  newspaper  published  by  the 
private  individual,  or  group  of  individuals  will 
wholly  disappear.  Anton  Menger  is,  perhaps,  the 
most  brilliant  exception  to  this  rule.  He  suggests 
that  there  will  be  an  official  newspaper  in  each  city, 
which  will  Impartially  publish  all  the  news  of  the 
day  as  well  as  complaints  and  criticisms  and  sug- 
gestions for  improvement  In  the  public  services.^ 

Now,  It  is  not  Impossible  to  conceive  of  a  fairly 
comprehensive  municipal  or  State  newspaper.  We 
already  have  our  daily  consular  bulletins.  The 
gathering  and  publication  of  news  could  doubtless 
be  socialized  without  special  difficulty.  We  may 
well  doubt,  however,  whether  such  a  collective 
news  service,  no  matter  how  Impartially  conducted, 
could,  of  itself,  satisfy  the  diverse  wants  and  tastes 
of  the  citizens,  even  as  well  as  they  are  satisfied 
to-day.  There  could  hardly  be  that  catering  to 
special  tastes  to  meet  which  the  press  of  to-day 
provides  a  fairly  extensive  choice.  For  dignified 
old  gentlemen  New  York  offers  the  Evening  Post, 
for  the  devotee  of  "  sport "  the  Evening  Tele- 
gram, and  for  the  ardent  radical  the  Call.  It  is 
doubtful  whether,  even  In  the  Socialist  State,  any 
official  paper  could  suit  all  three  as  well. 

Edward  Bellamy,  In  some  respects  the  most 
Ingenious   of  all   Utopia  builders,   offers   a  much 

1  Neue  Staatslehre,  pp.  57-58. 


Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     299 

more  attractive  solution  in  Looking  Backward. 
The  government  is  the  sole  printer  and  publisher, 
but  only  in  the  sense  that  it  must  publish  what  is 
wanted  by  the  people,  even  the  most  radical  views 
of  small  minorities.  The  people  for  whom  the 
paper  is  published  choose  their  own  editor : 

"  Supposing  some  of  my  neighbors  or  myself 
think  we  ought  to  have  a  newspaper  reflecting  our 
opinions,  and  devoted  especially  to  our  locality, 
trade,  or  profession.  We  go  about  among  the 
people  till  we  get  the  names  of  such  a  number  that 
their  annual  subscriptions  will  meet  the  cost  of  the 
paper,  which  is  little  or  big  according  to  the  large- 
ness of  Its  constituency.  The  amount  of  the  sub- 
scriptions marked  off,  the  credits  of  the  citizens 
guarantees  the  nation  against  loss  in  publishing  the 
paper;  its  business,  you  understand,  being  that  of 
a  publisher  purely,  with  no  option  to  refuse  the 
duty  required.  The  subscribers  to  the  paper  now 
elect  somebody  as  editor,  who.  If  he  accepts  the 
office,  is  discharged  from  other  service  during  his 
Incumbency.  Instead  of  paying  a  salary  to  him, 
as  In  your  day,  the  subscribers  pay  the  nation  an 
Indemnity  equal  to  the  cost  of  his  support  for  tak- 
ing him  away  from  the  general  service.  He  man- 
ages the  paper  just  as  one  of  your  editors  did, 
except  that  he  has  no  counting  room  as  they,  or 
Interests  of  private  capital  as  against  public  good 
to  defend.     At  the  end  of  the  first  year,  the  sub- 


300  'Applied  Socialism 

scribers  either  reelect  the  former  editor  or  choose 
anyone  else  to  fill  his  place.  An  able  editor,  of 
course,  keeps  his  place  indefinitely.  As  the  sub- 
scription list  enlarges,  the  funds  of  the  paper  In- 
crease, and  it  is  improved  by  the  securing  of  more 
and  better  contributors,  just  as  your  papers  were."  * 

If  there  Is  anything  we  may  say  with  reasonable 
certainty  concerning  the  Socialist  State  it  is  that  It 
will  bear  very  little  resemblance  to  Bellamy's 
highly  centralized,  mechanically  constructed  Uto- 
pia. Nevertheless,  the  plan  of  publishing  news- 
papers which  he  suggests  Is  not  altogether 
impracticable,  and  might,  with  some  modifications, 
be  adopted  if  the  printing  industry  should  be 
completely  carried  on  by  State  and  municipal  au- 
thorities. Bernard  Shaw  would  apply  his  method 
of  publishing  books,  which  Is  an  adaptation  of 
Bellamy's  suggestion,  to  the  publication  of  news- 
papers. "  Newspapers  might  be  issued  on  similar 
terms,"  he  says;  "  and  It  would  always  be  open  to 
individuals,  or  to  groups  of  individuals,  to  publish 
anything  they  pleased  on  covering  the  cost  of  pub- 
lication." 2 

The  imperative  necessity  of  maintaining  the  free- 
dom of  the  press,  the  right  of  Individuals  or  groups 
to  publish  the  news  which  they  regard  as  of  special 
interest  and  Importance,  and  such  comments,  crlti- 

1  Edward  Bellamy,  Looking  Backivard,  Chap.  XV. 
^Fabian  Essays,  p.  159. 


Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     301 

cisms  and  arguments  as  they  desire,  Is  generally 
recognized  by  Socialist  writers  as  freely  and  fully 
as  by  Bellamy  and  Shaw.  Our  friend,  H.  G. 
Wells,  suggests,  that :  "  The  problem  of  the  press 
is  perhaps  to  be  solved  by  some  parallel  combina- 
tion of  individual  enterprise  and  public  resources."  ^ 
This  is  in  keeping  with  the  suggestion  made  by  M. 
Lucien  Desllnieres,  an  interesting  Socialist  writer 
who  is  unfortunately  little  known  outside  of 
France.  M.  Desllnieres  suggests  that  in  the  So- 
cialist State  there  will  be,  first  of  all,  an  official 
newspaper  service,  freely  distributed  to  all  citizens. 
The  machinery  for  this  distribution  already  exists, 
for  in  France  the  newspapers  are  distributed 
through  the  postoffices.  But  this  official  news- 
paper service  will  be  supplemented  by  a  "  free 
press,"  the  conditions  for  which  will  be  much  more 
favorable  than  they  are  to-day.  Very  little  money 
will  be  needed  to  publish  a  newspaper  under  So- 
cialism. Such  immense  sheets  as  we  have  to-day, 
largely  devoted  to  business  and  financial  adver- 
tisements, will  not  be  required.  A  publisher  or  a 
group  of  writers  who  wish  to  bring  out  a  journal 
dealing  with  any  kind  of  questions  whatever,  will 
apply  to  the  national  printing  works.  They  will 
pay  in  advance  the  amount  of  the  cost  of  printing 
as  many  copies  of  a  single  issue  as  they  may 
require.  This  price  will  cover  the  bare  cost  of 
1  Nevj  Worlds  for  Old,  pp.  281-282. 


302  'Applied  Socialism 

printing,  for  the  State  can  have  no  desire  to  make 
profit  out  of  the  service  rendered  to  its  citizens, 
that  is,  to  itself.  The  copies  when  printed  will 
be  forwarded  free  of  charge  to  the  agents  selected, 
and  all  moneys  received  for  such  copies  will  be 
paid  over  to  the  publishers  without  any  deduction.^ 
While  M.  Deslinleres  assumes  that  the  work  of 
printing  must  be  done  by  the  national  government, 
the  method  he  suggests  would  be  equally  adapted 
to  the  less  centralized  methods  of  municipal  enter- 
prise. 

Our  purpose  here  is  not  to  make  plans  for  the 
Socialist  State  or  to  write  its  recipes.  It  is  suffi- 
cient that  we  have  explored  the  subject  far  enough 
to  discover  that  there  Is  no  reason  to  fear  that  the 
Socialist  State  must  establish  a  rigid  censorship,  an 
intellectual  despotism ;  that,  in  the  expressive  words 
of  Mr.  Wells,  it  must  "  destroy  itself  by  choking 
the  channels  of  its  own  thinking."  That  there  are 
difficulties  to  be  overcome  and  problems  to  be 
solved,  need  not  be  denied,  even  though  we  may 
believe  that  the  difficulties  have  been  greatly  exag- 
gerated, and  that  the  citizens  of  the  future  Social- 
ist State  will  regard  our  fearful  anticipations  with 
as  much  wonder  and  amusement  as  we  now  regard 
the  fears  with  which  our  forefathers  anticipated 
railways,  free  schools  and  public  libraries. 

1  LuciEN  Deslinieres,  L'  Application  du  Systeme  Collectiviste, 
PP-  358-360,  Paris,  1902. 


Socialism  and  Intellectual  Service     303 

Without  attempting  anything  in  the  nature  of  a 
prophecy,  it  is  certain  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
philosophy  or  practical  programme  of  Socialism 
which  involves  the  suppression  of  a  free  press.  It 
is  quite  likely  that  there  will  be  well-edited  and 
impartial  official  newspapers  published  by  cities  and 
States,  for  the  universal  dissemination  of  informa- 
tion is  a  democratic  ideal  as  well  as  a  democratic 
necessity.  But  it  is  altogether  unlikely  that  the 
publication  of  other  newspapers  by  individuals  or 
societies,  for  the  advancement  of  their  special  in- 
terests, will  be  legally  prohibited  or  otherwise  made 
impossible,  or  that  such  newspapers  will  cease  to 
be  published  because  the  need  for  them  ceases  to 
exist.  Conservatism  and  radicalism,  satisfaction 
and  discontent,  timidity  and  courage  will  continue 
as  opposing  forces  and  will  find  their  outlet  through 
all  the  known  channels  of  publicity  and  argument. 
Not  only  may  we  expect  the  freedom  of  the  press 
to  be  preserved,  but  it  is  quite  probable  that  the 
pamphlet  will  be  restored  as  a  means  of  political 
and  intellectual  discussion  and  propaganda. 

One  question  only  remains  to  be  considered  here. 
There  are  some  of  our  critics  who  admit,  more  or 
less  grudgingly,  that  the  Independent  newspaper 
will  be  possible,  and  even  Inevitable,  under  Social- 
ism. But  will  it  not  be  necessary  for  the  State, 
in  self-protection  to  exercise  a  rigid  censorship  over 
the  contents?     "  Could  it  allow  any  journalist  to 


304  Applied  Socialism 

criticize  its  primary  provisions  for  peace  and 
order?"  asks  a  recent  writer.^ 

"Why  not?"  we  ask  in  return.  Why  should 
we  suppose  that  such  a  censorship  would  be  tol- 
erated in  a  perfect  democracy,  when  it  is  not 
tolerated  in  the  partial  democracy  of  to-day? 
Even  in  capitalist  society,  with  a  powerful  class 
government  in  control,  the  journalist  of  to-day  is 
free  to  "  criticize  its  primary  provisions  for  peace 
and  order."  If  It  is  proposed  to  increase  our  mil- 
itary forces,  we  are  free  even  now  to  denounce  the 
proposal.  If  new  ordinances  imposing  restrictions 
upon  personal  freedom  are  enacted,  we  are  free  to 
denounce  them  even  though  we  must  observe  them. 
Why  need  we  fear  that  democracy  which  has  won 
this  measure  of  freedom  by  so  much  struggle  and 
sacrifice  will  destroy  the  freedom  and  forge  new 
chains  with  which  to  bind  Itself? 

Let  our  critics  answer,  if  they  can  I 

1  Jane  T.  Stoddart,  The  Neiv  Socialism,  p.  152. 


XI 

RELIGIOUS   FREEDOM    UNDER   SOCIALISM 

ON  one  occasion,  during  an  important 
Reichstag  debate,  Bebel  was  taunted  by 
some  of  his  parhamentary  opponents  for 
having  changed  his  opinion  upon  an  important  mat- 
ter of  Socialist  doctrine.  In  support  of  the  charge, 
some  of  his  earlier  utterances  were  quoted  against 
him.  With  characteristic  candor  Bebel  admitted 
that  his  views  had  been  modified,  and  used  the 
expressive  phrase  "  our  party  Is  continually  molt- 
ing." He  boasted  then  with  justifiable  pride  that 
the  Social  Democratic  Party  is  not  wedded  to  dog- 
mas, but  is  a  "  party  of  learners,  a  party  of  prog- 
ress." The  same  thing  may  be  truthfully  said  of 
the  Socialist  parties  of  the  world. 

Nothing  illustrates  this  continual  "  molting " 
more  admirably  than  the  remarkable  change  In  the 
attitude  of  the  Socialist  movement  toward  religion 
during  the  last  quarter  of  a  century.  From  the 
bitter  hostility  of  the  early  Marxist  movement  to 
the  fine  tolerance  expressed  in  the  Erfiirter  Pro- 
gramm,  and  since  followed  consistently  as  a  mat- 
ter of  party   policy,   Is   a   big   step.     From   the 


3o6  Applied  Socialism 

speeches  and  writings  of  some  of  the  early  leaders 
of  Marxian  Socialism  In  Germany  and  France  it 
would  be  possible  to  compile  a  moderate-sized  vol- 
ume of  passages  bitterly  attacking  Christianity  and 
the  Christian  Church.  Religion  and  capitalism 
were  regarded  as  twin  evils  to  be  combated  with 
equal  bitterness  and  vigor.  Thus,  Liebl<:necht  de- 
clared in  the  Volkstaat  in  1875  :  "  It  is  our  duty  as 
Socialists  to  root  out  God  with  all  our  zeal,  nor 
is  anyone  worthy  the  name  who  does  not  consecrate 
himself  to  the  spread  of  Atheism."  Bebel  de- 
clared In  the  Reichstag  on  the  thirty-first  of  De- 
cember, 1 8  8 1 :  "In  politics  we  profess  republican- 
ism, In  economics  Socialism,  in  religion  Atheism." 
It  would  be  extremely  disingenuous  to  set  up  the 
claim  that  these  and  similar  utterances  of  the  period 
must  be  regarded  as  merely  the  expression  of  indi- 
vidual opinions,  for  which  the  movement  must  not 
be  held  responsible.  Such  a  claim  can  fairly  be 
made  concerning  statements  of  a  similar  character 
in  the  present  day,  for  practically  all  the  great 
Socialist  parties  of  the  world  have  unequivocally 
declared  their  neutrality  upon  all  matters  of 
religious  belief.  Moreover,  blatant  Atheism  is  no 
longer  a  characteristic  feature  of  the  Socialist 
propaganda.  There  has  been  a  good  deal  of 
"  molting  "  in  the  Socialist  movement  during  the 
last  twenty-five  years,  especially  since  the  adoption 
of  the  Erfiirter  Programm.     In  the  early  days 


Religious  Freedom  307 

of  the  Marxian  movement  utterances  like  those  of 
Liebknecht  and  Bebel  were  so  common  as  to  be 
characteristic,  and  the  party  never  thought  of 
repudiating  them. 

This  association  of  Atheism  and  Socialism  is  the 
more  remarkable  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the 
Utopian  Socialist  movement  prior  to  Marx  was 
deeply  impregnated  with  religious  sentiment  and 
feeling.  Thus,  in  the  case  of  Weitling,  who  has 
been  described  as  the  connecting  link  between 
Utopian  and  scientific  Socialism,  we  find  that  his 
work  Is  pervaded  by  a  very  fervent  religious  spirit. 
He  is  a  sort  of  latter-day  Piers  the  Plowman, 
a  religious  enthusiast,  whose  teachings  are  based 
upon  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  Fourier's  whole  sys- 
tem was  Inspired  by  a  reverential  admiration  and 
awe  of  the  God-created  divine  plan  of  order  man- 
ifested throughout  the  universe.  The  Immortal- 
ity of  the  soul  was  as  much  an  essential  part  of 
his  system  as  was  the  theory  of  attractive  industry. 
Saint-Simon,  also,  was  essentially  a  religious  mys- 
tic, as  witness  his  Nouveaii  Chr'istianisme.  It  is 
hardly  to  be  wondered  at  that  so  many  Socialists 
of  the  pre-Marxian  period  proclaimed  themselves 
Christians.  Vandervelde  quotes  from  Proudhon's 
paper,  Le  Peuple,  the  account  of  a  banquet  of 
French  Socialists  in  1848,  at  which  toasts  were 
drunk  "  To  Christ,  the  Father  of  Socialism,"  "  To 
the  Coming  of  God  on  Earth,"  and  "  To  the  LIv- 


3o8  Applied  Socialism 

ing  Christ."  ^  The  bitter  hostility  to  religion 
which  has  characterized  the  modern  Socialist  move- 
ment in  France  had  not  yet  taken  root. 

Now  there  is  no  apparent  reason  why  belief  In 
the  collective  ownership  of  the  principal  means  of 
production  should  be  regarded  as  incompatible  with 
an  equally  strong  belief  in  Christianity,  or,  for  that 
matter.  In  Buddhism,  or  Confucianism.  The  most 
Ingenious  theologian  would  find  It  difficult  to  show 
the  slightest  inconsistency  In  the  acceptance  of  every 
fundamental  Christian  belief  and  the  most  enthu- 
siastic support  of  the  full  Socialist  programme.  In 
actual  practice.  In  every  country,  tens  of  thousands 
of  loyal  Socialists  are  equally  loyal  to  their  religious 
beliefs  and  affiliations.  In  all  the  Christian  coun- 
tries of  Europe  and  America,  thousands  of  Chris- 
tian believers  are  enrolled  members  of  the  Socialist 
parties,  and  many  thousands  more  regularly  vote 
for  Socialist  candidates.  This  Is  true  of  Prot- 
estants to  a  much  larger  extent  than  of  Catholics, 
but  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  there  are  many 
devout  Catholics  who  are  active  members  of  the 
national  Socialist  parties,  and  that  the  Socialist  vote 
In  typical  Catholic  strongholds  steadily  Increases, 
alike  In  Europe  and  the  United  States.  The 
Socialists  have  elected  many  Catholics  to  public 

1  Emile  Vandervelde,  Essais  Soctalistes,  pp.  130-131.    Paris, 
Felix  Alcan,  1906. 


Religious  Freedom  309 

ofEce,  including  a  number  of  parliamentary  repre- 
sentatives. 

No  sympathetic  student  of  both  movements  can 
doubt  that  there  is  a  very  real  kinship  and  affinity 
between  Christianity  and  Socialism.  Even  Pro- 
fessor Flint,  who  may  fairly  be  called  one  of  the 
least  sympathetic  and  fair-minded  of  our  critics, 
is  forced  to  grudgingly  admit  that  Socialism  and 
Christianity  "  are  by  no  means  entirely  unre- 
lated." ^  Of  Socialism  he  says:  "  It  is  to  a  large 
extent  exaggeration  or  misapplication  of  principles 
which  are  true  and  good,  which  Christ  has  taught 
and  sanctioned,  which  the  Gospel  rests  on  and 
must  stand  or  fall  by,  and  Christians  will  betray 
Christ  and  the  Gospel  if  they  desert  these  princi- 
ples, or  depreciate  them,  or  allow  them  to  be  evil 
spoken  of,  or  act  as  if  they  were  ashamed  of  them, 
because  Socialism  has  so  far  recognized  and 
adopted  them."  -  Kautsky,  who  cannot  be  ac- 
cused of  entertaining  any  strong  religious  sympa- 
thies, admits  that  it  is  possible  to  be  a  Socialist  and 
a  Christian  at  the  same  time,  that  "  the  striving 
of  the  masses  for  the  abolition  of  class  distinction 
is  perfectly  reconcilable  with  the  Christian  teach- 
ing of  the  Gospels,"  and  that  "  the  Socialist  move- 
ment stands  nearer  to  primitive  Christianity  than 

1  Robert  Flint,  Socialism,  p.  453. 
-  Idem. 


3IO  Applied  Socialism 

perhaps  any  other  modern  movement,  for  both 
originated  among  the  masses."  ^ 

How,  then,  shall  we  account  for  the  hostility  to 
religion  which  has  characterized  so  much  of  the 
later  Socialist  propaganda? 

In  answering  the  question  it  will  be  well  to  dis- 
tinguish clearly  between  that  instinctive  and  bitter 
hostility  to  organized  Christianity  which  is  so  com- 
monly encountered  in  the  propaganda  literature  of 
Socialism,  and  the  intellectual  opposition  to  Chris- 
tian theology  upon  rationalistic  grounds,  dogmatic 
Atheism,  which  until  lately  was  hardly  less  com- 
mon. The  former  represents  not  so  much  antag- 
onism to  essential  Christianity  as  to  the  Church. 
Not  infrequently  it  Is  accompanied  by  a  very  pro- 
found and  tender  affection  for  Jesus  Christ,  and 
a  passionate  longing  for  the  realization  of  his  teach- 
ing. Bernstein  has  called  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  masses  have  Instinctively  sensed  a  certain 
definite  relation  of  Socialism  to  Christianity. 
Many  a  Socialist  lecturer  —  and  it  would  probably 
be  safe  to  say  every  Socialist  lecturer  of  large  ex- 
perience —  has  been  told  by  workingmen,  and 
working  women,  that  all  he  had  said  was  to  be 
found  in  the  Bible,  and  that  they  could  find  it 
there.^      Such  men  oppose  organized  Christianity 

1  Cf.  Kautsky's  pamphlet,  Die  Sozialdemokrat'ie  und  die 
katholische  Kirche,  pp.  7-8. 

2  Edward  Bernstein,  Evolutionary  Socialism,  p.  166. 


Religious  Freedom  311 

because  they  believe  it  to  be  false  to  the  teachings 
of  Jesus.  The  utmost  love  and  reverence  for 
Jesus  and  his  teaching  Is  coupled  with  the  bitterest 
hatred  and  most  scornful  contempt  for  the  Chris- 
tian Church.^ 

This  attitude  is,  in  a  large  degree,  a  result  of 
the  growth  of  the  class  consciousness  of  the  work- 
ers. It  is  notorious  that  the  Christian  Churches, 
both  Protestant  and  Catholic,  have  been  largely 
dominated  by  the  Interests  of  the  capitalist  classes 
and  have,  in  the  main,  defended  their  interests 
against  the  Interests  of  the  masses.  In  the  vast 
majority  of  cases,  they  have  either  openly  opposed 
the  workers  in  their  struggles,  or  they  have  re- 
mained silent  when  they  ought,  as  followers  of 
Jesus,  to  have  spoken.  Dependence  upon  the  rich 
supporters  of  the  Church  and  fear  of  offending 
"  the  best  people  In  town,"  have  silenced  the  voice 
of  the  ministry  in  so  many  cases  that  the  workers 
have  come  to  look  upon  the  Church  as  the  ally 
of  capitalism.  For  one  who  is  at  all  sympathetic 
with  the  best  in  the  Christian  Church,  who  realizes 
the  sincerity  of  faith  and  purpose  of  many  Chris- 
tians, It  Is  not  a  pleasant  thing  to  contemplate  the 
Indictment  of  organized  Christianity  which  needs 
must  be  made.  Why  is  it  that  one  rarely  sees  the 
union  label  upon  any  piece  of  printing  done  for 

^  Cf.  ray  Spiritual  Significance  of  Modern  Socialism,  Section 
IV. 


312  Applied  Socialism 

the  Church?  Does  anyone  doubt  that  It  Is  because 
the  master  class  so  far  controls  the  churches  that 
they  dare  not  take  the  side  of  the  workers  In  the 
industrial  struggle,  even  to  that  slight  extent?  ^ 

If  anyone  were  to  make  a  canvass  In  any  great 
Industrial  city  and  compile  a  list  of  the  worst  ex- 
ploiters of  labor,  the  bitterest  enemies  of  Organ- 
ized Labor,  the  owners  of  man-killing  tenements 
and  factories  that  are  fire-traps,  the  men  respon- 
sible for  corrupting  legislators  and  public  admin- 
istrative servants,  and  the  real  leaders  of  those 
political  machines  that  traffic  In  votes  and  draw 
tributes  from  gambling  hells  and  brothels,  does 
anybody  at  all  familiar  with  the  facts  doubt  that 
the  list  would  include  the  names  of  most  of  the 
"  prominent  leaders  "  in  the  churches  and  syna- 
gogues of  the  city?  It  is  true,  of  course,  that  one 
would  also  find  these  same  men  actively  Interested 
In  every  philanthropic  work  In  the  city,  serving  on 
boards  of  directors  of  Charity  Organizations,  con- 
tributing to  hospital  funds,  "  rescue  missions,"  and 
so  on.  But  this  fact  does  not  atone  for  the  other. 
The  workers  do  not  want  charity!  The  unem- 
ployed workmen  who  marched  through  the  streets 
of  London,  bearing  banners  Inscribed,  "  Damn  your 
charity !     We  want  Justice,  not  Charity !  "  were 

1  These  remarks  apply  equally,  of  course,  to  Judaism  and  its 
synagogues. 


Religious  Freedom  313 

far  more  truly  Christian  in  their  thought  than  the 
professed  Christians  who  contributed  to  the  tem- 
porary relief  of  the  starving  men  and  their  fam- 
ilies. 

Rarely  indeed  has  organized  religion  given  its 
support  to  the  struggling  proletariat.  Chartists 
struggling  for  the  franchise,  trade  unionists  fight- 
ing for  better  wages  and  shorter  hours,  Socialists 
combating  the  capitalist  system  —  all  have  encoun- 
tered either  the  active  opposition  or  the  cowardly 
silence  of  church  and  synagogue.  All  too  often 
the  spokesmen  of  organized  religion  have  discour- 
aged and  condemned  the  struggling  proletariat  and 
preached  meekness,  obedience  and  resignation;  all 
too  often  they  have  urged  the  workers  to  endure 
with  patience  earthly  wrongs  in  the  hope  of  a  heav- 
enly recompense ;  too  often  they  have  taught  the 
workers  that  they  must  be  "  content  in  the  station 
whereunto  Almighty  God  has  been  pleased  to  ap- 
point them" — thus  organized  religion  has  been 
made  the  servitor  of  the  master  class.  The  mas- 
ters of  bread  and  lords  of  power  have  not  been 
slow  to  recognize  this  fact.  M.  Thiers,  the  French 
statesman,  said  in  1848:  "I  wish  to  make  the 
influence  of  the  clergy  all-powerful,  because  I 
depend  upon  them  to  spread  that  good  philosophy 
which  teaches  man  that  he  is  here  on  earth  to 
suffer,  and  not  that  other  philosophy,  which  says 


314  Applied  Socialism 

on  the  contrary,  to  man,  '  Enjoy.'  "  ^  The  work- 
ers, too,  have  come  to  regard  church  and  syna- 
gogue as  allies  of  the  capitalist  class. 

We  cannot  wonder,  then,  that  the  class  con- 
sciousness of  the  workers,  which  modern  Socialism 
has  done  so  much  to  develop,  expresses  itself  very 
often  In  bitter  antagonism  to  the  church.  As  the 
Rev.  R.  J.  Campbell  says:  "There  Is  good  rea- 
son for  the  antagonism,  and  the  reason  Is  that  the 
churches  have  been  captured  to  a  large  extent  by 
the  forces  which  Socialism  seeks  to  destroy.  The 
churches  have  largely  forgotten  their  own  origin. 
.  .  .  We  are  thus  confronted  with  a  curious  and 
anomalous  situation :  The  Socialism  which  is  devel- 
oping so  generally  In  antagonism  to  conventional 
Christianity  Is  far  nearer  to  the  original  Christian- 
ity than  the  Christianity  of  the  churches.  The 
objective  of  Socialism  is  that  zvith  which  Christian- 
ity began  its  history.  Socialism  is  actually  a  swing 
back  to  that  gospel  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  which 
was  the  only  gospel  the  first  Christians  had  to 
preach;  the  traditional  theology  of  the  churches  Is 
a  departure  from  it.  I  do  not  mean,  of  course,  to 
make  the  foolish  statement  that  primitive  Chris- 
tianity was  Identical  with  the  Socialism  of  to-day; 
it  was  not,  but  it  was  far  nearer  to  the  Socialism 
1  Quoted  by  Paul  Lafargue,  in  The  Right  To  Be  Lazy. 


Religious  Freedom  315 

of  to-day  than  to  the  official  Christianity  of  to- 
day." 1 

We  move  here  in  a  tragic  circle  of  circumstances. 
So  long  as  the  churches  and  synagogues  are  dom- 
inated by  the  class  interests  of  the  masters  of  bread, 
so  long  will  the  class  consciousness  of  the  workers 
express  Itself  in  bitter  hostility.  And  so  long  as 
the  workers  are  hostile  to  these  institutions  and 
distrust  them,  so  long  will  the  master  class  control 
them.  The  workers  will,  under  these  conditions, 
be  compelled  to  create  for  themselves  other  chan- 
nels for  the  expression  of  their  religious  instincts 
and  enthusiasm. 

Turning  from  the  apparently  increasing  hostility 
of  the  practical  movement  of  the  working  class 
toward  organized  religion,  to  the  intellectual  oppo- 
sition to  religion  upon  rationalistic  grounds,  we  find 
a  conflict  that  is  constantly  diminishing  in  extent 
and  intensity  of  bitterness.  Even  the  worst  ene- 
mies of  Socialism  admit  this  to  be  the  case.  Gen- 
erally, the  suggestion  is  made  that  the  changed 
attitude  is  due  to  tactical  exigencies,  a  suppression 
of  one  of  the  real  aims  of  the  movement  for  the 
sake  of  votes.  Rarely  do  we  find  a  critic  wise 
enough  to  perceive  and  candid  enough  to  admit  the 
real  reason,  the  general  subsidence  of  the  tide  of 

1  R.  J.  Campbell,  M.  A.,  Christianity  and  the  Social  Order, 
pp.  19-20.     (Italics  mine.     J.  S.) 


3i6  Applied  Socialism 

rationalism  and  the  universal  reaction  against  the 
dogmatic  Atheism  of  a  generation  ago. 

Elsewhere  I  have  attempted  to  explain  rather 
than  to  excuse  the  close  alliance  with  dogmatic 
Atheism  in  our  early  propaganda.^ 

The  modern  Socialist  movement,  the  movement 
which  the  genius  of  Marx  inspired,  dates  from  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Its  rise  was 
contemporaneous  with  the  rise  of  that  destructive 
rationalistic  criticism  of  religion  which  spread  all 
over  the  world.  Darwin's  Origin  of  Species  and 
Marx's  Critique  of  Political  Economy  both  ap- 
peared in  the  same  year,  1859.  Darwinism  pro- 
voked an  intellectual  conflict  into  which  practically 
all  educated  and  intelligent  men  were  drawn.  The 
cobbler  at  his  bench  studied  the  popular  expositions 
of  evolution  and  boldly  assailed  the  crude  and 
brutal  theology  of  the  time.  The  pulpit,  with  few 
exceptions,  assailed  the  new  science  as  blasphemous 
and  fatal  to  religion.  The  preachers  and  theo- 
logians made  the  not  unnatural  mistake  of  con- 
fusing their  crude  dogmas  and  creeds  with  religion 
itself.  On  the  other  hand,  the  believers  in  the 
new  scientific  theories,  likewise  confusing  dogma 
and  religion,  exultantly  proclaimed  the  overthrow 
of  religion. 

It  was  both   natural   and   inevitable   that   the 

1  Cf.    John    Spargo,    The   Spiritual   Significance    of   Modern 
Socialism. 


Religious  Freedom  317 

pioneers  of  the  modern  Socialist  movement  should 
ally  themselves  with  the  new  science,  and  that  they 
should  thoroughly  accept  the  rationalistic  criticisms 
of  religion  to  which  the  new  science  gave  birth. 
Although  one  might  well  believe  in  every  Marxian 
principle,  in  the  materialistic  conception  of  history, 
the  doctrine  of  the  class  struggle,  in  the  surplus- 
value  theory  and  the  inevitability  of  Socialism,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  accept  the  fundamentals  of 
religious  belief,  the  early  Marxists  rarely  perceived 
the  fact,  simply  because  they  were  equally  hostile 
to  capitalism  and  to  religion,  equally  pledged  to 
Socialism  and  to  rationalism.  That  these  separate 
interests  were  blended  In  their  propaganda  writ- 
ings and  speeches  Is  not  strange;  it  would  be 
strange,  indeed,  if  it  were  otherwise.  The  fact 
remains,  however,  that  the  Atheism  was  not  logic- 
ally derived  from  the  Socialist  philosophy,  but  was 
a  product  of  the  general  Intellectual  movement  of 
the  time. 

A  phenomenal  revolution  In  religious  and  theo- 
logical thought  has  resulted  from  the  general 
acceptance  of  the  principle  of  evolution.  Science 
has  won  its  way.  Evolution  is  now  preached  In 
those  churches  wherein  Darwin,  Huxley  and 
Spencer  were  denounced  a  generation  ago  as  foes 
of  God  and  destroyers  of  religion.  Science  Is  less 
dogmatic,  too.  Scientists  like  Lord  Kelvin  and 
Sir  Oliver  Lodge  —  the  latter  a  Socialist  —  recon- 


3i8  Applied  Socialism 

cile  science  and  religion,  and  accept  the  facts  of 
evolution  together  with  a  belief  in  a  Divine  Intel- 
ligence and  the  Immortality  of  the  Soul.  In  the 
words  of  Professor  Sombart:  "  There  is  no  earnest 
representative  of  science  anywhere  who  to-day 
dares  to  assert  that  science  means  Atheism  and 
excludes  religion."  * 

Many  of  the  things  which  Ingersoll  was  so  bit- 
terly assailed  for  saying  have  become  the  common- 
places of  the  orthodox  Christian  pulpit,  at  least  in 
the  Protestant  churches.  The  bitterness  of  the 
old  conflict  has  passed  away.  Science  is  no  longer 
a  synonym  for  Atheism  in  the  mind  of  the  average 
educated  man.  The  Socialist  movement  naturally 
reflects  the  new  intellectual  spirit  and  temper,  with 
the  result  that  there  is  much  greater  tolerance  for 
religious  belief  than  formerly.  As  Professor  Som- 
bart truly  says :  "  At  the  present  day  fundamentally 
hostile  views  about  religion  are  to  be  heard  only 
in  the  circles  of  half-educated  Socialists."  ^  This 
is  true,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  an  overwhelm- 
ing majority  of  the  intellectual  leaders  of  the  move- 
ment in  all  lands  are  avowed  agnostics.  Dogmatic 
Atheism  is  an  obsolete  phase  of  Socialist  thought 
and  propaganda. 

1  Werner  Sombart,  Socialism  and  the  Social  Movement  in 
the  XIX  Century,  pp.  i6o-i6i.     Edition  of  1898. 

~  Quoted  by  Stoddart,  The  Neiv  Socialism,  p.  27,  from  p. 
loi  of  Sombart's  Socialismus  und  Sozial  Bewegung,  Edition  of 
1908. 


Religious  Freedom  319 

At  the  Erfurt  Congress  of  the  German  Social 
Democracy,  in  October,  1891,  a  new  party  pro- 
gramme and  declaration  of  principles  was  adopted. 
The  old  Gotha  Programme  had  contained  the  fol- 
lowing as  Article  VI  in  the  practical  demands  of  the 
party:  "Universal  and  equal  popular  education 
by  the  State.  Universal  compulsory  education. 
Free  instruction  in  all  forms  of  art.  Declaration 
that  religion  is  a  private  matter."  The  Erfurt 
Congress  separated  the  subject  of  religion  from 
that  of  education  and  adopted  as  Article  VI  of  the 
party  programme  the  following:  "Declaration 
that  religion  is  a  private  matter.  Abolition  of  all 
expenditure  from  public  funds  upon  ecclesiastical 
and  religious  objects.  Ecclesiastical  and  religious 
bodies  are  to  be  regarded  as  private  associations, 
which  order  their  affairs  independently."  Nearly 
all  the  great  national  Socialist  parties  have  based 
their  policy  upon  the  Erfurt  Programme. 

Now,  the  statement  "  religion  is  a  private  mat- 
ter "  has  been  condemned  as  evasive  by  a  great 
many  anti-Sociahst  writers,  as  well  as  by  some 
Socialists.  Thus,  we  find  the  author  of  a  recent 
book  ^  gleefully  quoting  the  statement  of  a  dele- 
gate to  the  convention  of  the  Socialist  party  of  the 
United  States,  in  1908,  that:  "  Religion  is  a  socio- 
logical  question,    an   anthropological    question,    a 

1  C.  Bertrand  Thompson,  The  Church  and  the  Wage  Earners, 
p.  i29n. 


320  Applied  Socialism 

question  of  chronology,  of  economics,  of  theosophy 
[?  philosophy].  There  are  few  forms  of  modern 
thought  that  do  not  directly  affect  the  question  of 
religion,  and  when  you  say  that  it  is  merely  a 
question  of  the  private  conscience,  you  fly  in  the 
face  of  the  science  and  learning  of  your  day."  ^ 
Clearly  what  is  meant  by  the  declaration  that 
religion  is  a  "  private  matter  "  Is  that  the  party 
first  of  all  imposes  no  religious  tests;  that  It  does 
not  limit  the  religious  beliefs  of  its  members;  and 
that  the  State  has  no  right  to  interfere  with  the 
religious  convictions  of  its  citizens. 

If  we  analyze  the  statement  of  the  position  of 
the  International  Socialist  Movement  contained  in 
the  Erfurt  Programme,  we  shall  find  that  It  in- 
volves nothing  to  which  any  loyal  American  can 
take  exception  without  attacking  the  very  basis  of 
our  government.  It  involves  the  following  prin- 
ciples: ( I )  the  freedom  of  the  individual  In  mat- 
ters of  religious  belief,  the  State  to  Impose  no 
religious  tests  upon  Its  citizens;  (2)  the  complete 
separation  of  Church  and  State;  (3)  prohibition  of 
the  expenditure  of  public  funds  upon  ecclesiastical 
and  religious  subjects;  (4)  freedom  of  religious 
associations  independent  of  the  State.^ 

1  Cf.  Proceedings,  National  Convention  Socialist  Party,  pp. 
191-192. 

-  It  need  hardly  be  said  that  the  State  could  not  permit  dan- 
gerous practices  subversive  of  public  order  and  morality,  even 
though  these  might  masquerade  as  "  religious  exercises."    Hu- 


Religious  Freedom  321 

It  Is  undeniably  true  that  the  separation  of 
Church  and  State  Is  a  cardinal  tenet  of  Socialist 
policy.  The  Jesuit  writer,  Victor  Cathrein,  says: 
"  This  doctrine  Is  directly  antagonistic  to  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Catholic  Church,  which  has  always  con- 
demned as  Injurious  and  untenable  the  principle  of 
absolute  separation  of  Church  and  State."  ^  Even 
In  Europe,  there  are  many  loyal  Catholics  who 
believe  that  the  Church  and  the  State  should  be 
completely  separated,  and  who  would  deplore  any 
attempt  to  restore  the  temporal  sovereignty  of  the 
Pope,  just  as  there  are  many  thousands  of  com- 
municants of  the  Church  of  England  who  believe 
in  the  Disestablishment  and  Disendowment  of  the 
Church  as  whole-heartedly  as  the  most  aggressive 
Nonconformist.  It  Is  probable  that  a  great  ma- 
jority of  the  Catholics  of  America  who  consider 
the  subject  at  all,  believe  that  their  Church  Is  at 
least  as  well-off  In  this  country,  with  Its  constitu- 
tional separation  of  Church  and  State,  as  It  would 
be  If  there  was  a  close  alliance  of  the  two  and  the 
maintenance  of  the  Church  depended  upon  the 
public  treasury.     The  attacks  upon  the  Catholic 

man  sacrifice,  mutilations  of  the  body,  obscene  exhibitions  and 
sexual  perversion  are  all  forms  which  have  been  assumed  by 
religious  fanaticism,  and  which  no  civilized  society  could  tol- 
erate. 

1  Victor  Cathrein,  S.  J.,  Socialism,  Its  Theoretical  Basis  and 
Practical  Application.  Revised  and  Enlarged  by  Victor  F. 
Gettlemann,  S.  J.,  p.  211. 


322  Applied  Socialism 

Church  in  France,  Spain,  Portugal,  and  even  China, 
in  recent  years  have  been  directed  against  the 
Church  as  a  political  force,  rather  than  as  a  re- 
ligious organization.' 

The  aim  of  the  Socialist,  then,  is  not  the  sup- 
pression of  religious  organizations.  On  the  con- 
trary, freedom  of  religious  association  is  one  of 
the  principles  of  the  Socialist  movement.  No 
other  interpretation  is  possible.  A  number  of 
years  ago  a  Socialist  wrote  to  the  Appeal  to  Reason 
asking  what  would  become  of  the  churches  under 
Socialism.  In  reply  he  was  told  that  Socialism 
would  abolish  religion,  and  that  all  churches  and 
other  religious  edifices  would  be  socialized  and 
turned  into  public  lecture  halls.  When  a  similar 
question  was  asked  a  year  or  so  ago  in  the  same 
Socialist  paper  by  the  same  writer,  the  reply  was 
that  under  Socialism  there  would  be  entire  free- 
dom in  matters  of  religion;  that  any  number  of 
citizens  will  be  free  to  form  a  religious  organiza- 
tion and  to  maintain  a  place  of  worship  and  a 
minister,  if  they  so  desire,  at  their  own  expense. 
The  "  molting  "  process  is  not  confined  to  Ger- 
man Socialists  I 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  later  attitude 
of  the  Appeal  to  Reason  reflects  the  present  posi- 
tion of  the  international  movement  upon  this  ques- 
tion. Perhaps  the  best  and  most  comprehensive 
statement  of  the  whole  question  is  contained  in  the 


Religious  Freedom  323 

remarkable  address  which  Wilhelm  Liebknecht 
dehvered  at  the  Erfurt  Congress  expounding  the 
new  programme,  which,  following  Liebknecht's 
speech,  was  unanimously  adopted.  That  address 
with  its  fine  tolerance  affords  a  striking  contrast 
to  the  bitter  hostility  toward  religion  which  Lieb- 
knecht had  expressed  in  the  Volkstaat  in  1875. 
Upon  the  subject  of  religion,  according  to  the 
official  report  of  the  Congress,  Liebknecht  said : 

"  The  two  following  paragraphs  of  the  programme  have 
given  us  much  trouble  in  their  formulation.^  To  meet  the 
difficulty  it  was  moved  to  accept  the  democratic  demands  as 
found  in  the  Eisenacher  programme:  '  Separation  of  the  church 
from  the  school  and  from  the  State.'  That  was  quite  right  in 
its  time,  but  at  present  it  does  not  comprehend  all  that  we 
would  and  must  say.  In  the  earlier  formulation  the  church  is 
regarded  as  an  institution  equal  in  rank  with  the  State.  This 
is  not  our  idea.  We  go  much  further;  according  to  our  view, 
in  the  free  community  for  which  we  strive  the  church  is  simply 
a  private  association,  ivhich  is  controlled  by  its  oivn  laii^s,  as 
all  other  private  associations  are.  That  is  the  meaning  of  the 
absolute  equality  to  which  we  have  here  given  expression. 
Therefore,  we  say:  'The  ecclesiastical  and  religious  bodies  are 
to  be  regarded  as  private  associations.'  And  in  order  that  the 
Catholics  may  not  be  able  to  say  that  ive  ivish  to  offer  them 

1  Liebknecht  refers  here  to  Article  VI,  Quoted  on  p.  319, 
which  deals  with  religion  and  religious  bodies,  and  Article 
VII,  which  deals  with  the  subject  of  education  and  demands; 
"  Secularization  of  education.  Compulsory  attendance  at  public 
national  schools.  Free  education,  free  supply  of  educational 
apparatus  and  free  maintenance  to  children  in  schools  and  to 
such  pupils,  male  and  female,  in  higher  educational  institutions, 
as  are  judged  to  be  fitted  for  further  education." 


324  Applied  Socialism 

•violence  we  have  added:     'Associations  which  order  their  af- 
fairs  independently.' 

"  In  connection  with  this  passage  concerning  the  church  we 
demand  '  Secularization  of  education.'  This  means  that  the 
church,  that  religion,  should  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  school. 
We  are  bound  by  principle  to  demand  this  and  the  point  is  so 
clear  that  explanation  seems  unnecessary.  However,  it  is  worth 
while  to  meet  beforehand  all  misunderstandings  and  intentional 
or  unintentional  misinterpretations  to  which  such  a  demand  in 
our  platform  could  give  occasion.  It  is  well  known  how 
stubbornly  the  ecclesiastical  bodies  carry  on  the  struggle  con- 
cerning the  school  whenever  that  question  comes  to  the  front. 
One  recognizes  how  much  it  means  to  them,  Catholics,  Protes- 
tants and  others,  to  hold  and  make  their  control  firm  over  the 
intellect.  You  know  how  the  Social  Democracy  is  represented 
as  a  red  specter,  how  the  ecclesiastical  associations  say  of  us 
that  we  are  a  party  of  Atheists,  and  that  the  Social  Democrats 
would  forcibly  take  religion  from  everyone  and  violently 
crush  the  church.  In  order  to  take  the  foundation  from  and 
to  break  the  point  of  these  demagogical  slanders  and  pious 
falsehoods,  ix:e  state  here  that  the  regulation  of  religious  mat- 
ters lies  nuith  each  individual,  and  ive  declare  religion  to  be  a 
private  matter.  I  admit  that  I  struggled  for  some  time  against 
taking  up  these  practical  considerations,  since  their  meaning 
seemed  so  self-evident  in  the  declaration  of  the  programme. 
But  in  looking  back  over  the  systematic  calumny  of  our  position 
in  regard  to  religion  it  appears  necessary  that  they  be  stated. 
The  Social  Democracy  as  such  has  absolutely  nothing  to  do 
ivith  religion.  Every  man  has  a  right  to  think  and  believe 
what  he  will,  and  no  one  has  the  right  to  molest  or  limit  an- 
other in  his  thoughts  or  beliefs,  or  to  allow  anyone's  opinions 
to  be  a  disadvantage  to  him  in  any  way.  Opinions  and  beliefs 
can  only  be  proceeded  against  when  they  become  converted  into 
pernicious  and  unlawful  acts,  as  for  example,  with  certain 
bigoted  sects.  But  the  opinions  and  beliefs  in  themselves  must 
be  free,  perfectly  free.  We  as  Social  Democrats  must  respect 
them,  and  those  Social  Democrats  <ivho  respect  the  genuineness 
and  worth  of  their  felloiu  men  luill  also  avoid  scoffing  at  their 


Religious  Freedom  325 

beliefs.  Above  all,  scoffing  at  a  prejudice  is  foolish  and  im- 
politic, since  it  but  strengthens  it.  Only  education  can  be  of 
help  here.  But  if  it  were  our  duty  to  state  that  we  will  not  rob 
anyone  of  his  religion  or  hinder  him  in  the  exercise  thereof,  we 
dare  not  ofiFer  the  church  any  handle  by  means  of  which  it  can 
come  into  the  schools,  and,  therefore,  we  say,  '  Compulsory  at- 
tendance at  public  national  schools.'  Every  child  must  be  sent 
by  its  parents  or  relatives  to  these  secular  schools,  in  which  no 
religion  is  taught,  but  by  virtue  of  the  fundamental  statement, 
that  religion  is  a  private  matter,  it  remains  to  the  parents  them- 
selves to  teach  their  children,  or  allow  them  to  be  taught,  in 
the  religion  ivhich  they  choose.  At  first  we  thought  to  expressly 
state  this  in  the  programme,  but  we  found  that  such  a  practical 
commentary  did  not  belong  there. 

"We  demand  further  that  expenditures  from  the  public  funds 
not  only  to  ecclesiastical  but  to  religious  objects  be  abolished. 
We  have  added  the  word  '  religious '  because  there  are  associa- 
tions of  a  religious  nature  that  are  not  ecclesiastical,  and  also 
there  shall  be  no  expenditure  from  the  public  funds,  just  be- 
cause religion  is  a  private  matter."  ^ 

Little  or  nothing  need  be  added  to  this  fine 
declaration  by  Llebknecht,  greatest  of  the  political 
leaders  of  Marxian  Socialism.  The  Socialist  State 
will  not  attempt  to  abolish  religion  or  to  suppress 
it.  On  the  contrary,  it  will  set  religion  free  — 
free  from  the  entanglements  of  political  power, 
and  free  from  the  domination  of  a  ruling  class. 
Above  all,  it  will  make  possible  the  realization  of 
the  great  social  Ideals  which  are  the  vital  forces 
in  all  religions  —  universal  peace,  social  justice  and 
the  brotherhood  of  man. 

1  Italics  mine.    J.  S. 


APPENDIX 

PROGRAMME   OF  THE   GERMAN   SOCIAL   DEMO- 
CRATIC   PARTY 

THE  economic  development  of  bourgeois 
society  leads  by  natural  necessity  to  the 
downfall  of  the  small  industry,  whose 
foundation  is  formed  by  the  workers'  private  own- 
ership of  his  means  of  production.  It  separates 
the  worker  from  his  means  of  production,  and  con- 
verts him  into  a  property-less  proletarian,  while  the 
means  of  production  become  the  monopoly  of  a  rel- 
atively small  number  of  capitalists  and  large  land- 
owners. 

Hand  in  hand  with  this  monopolization  of  the 
means  of  production  goes  the  displacement  of  the 
dispersed  small  industries  by  colossal  great  indus- 
tries, the  development  of  the  tool  into  the  machine, 
and  a  gigantic  growth  in  the  productivity  of  human 
labor.  But  all  the  advantages  of  this  transforma- 
tion are  monopolized  by  capitalists  and  large  land- 
owners. For  the  proletariat  and  the  declining 
intermediate  classes  —  petty  bourgeoisie  and  peas- 
ants —  it  means  a  growing  augmentation  of  the 

326 


Appendix  327 

insecurity  of  their  existence,  of  misery,  oppression, 
enslavement,  debasement,  and  exploitation. 

Ever  greater  grows  the  number  of  proletarians, 
ever  more  enormous  the  army  of  surplus  workers, 
ever  sharper  the  opposition  between  exploiters  and 
exploited,  ever  bitterer  the  class  war  between  bour- 
geoisie and  proletariat,  which  divides  modern 
society  into  two  hostile  camps,  and  is  the  common 
hall-mark  of  all  industrial  countries. 

The  gulf  between  the  propertied  and  the  prop- 
erty-less is  further  widened  through  the  crises, 
founded  in  the  essence  of  the  capitalistic  method 
of  production,  which  constantly  become  more  com- 
prehensive and  more  devastating,  which  elevate 
general  insecurity  to  the  normal  condition  of  soci- 
ety, and  which  prove  that  the  powers  of  production 
of  contemporary  society  have  grown  beyond  meas- 
ure, and  that  private  ownership  of  the  means  of 
production  has  become  Incompatible  with  their 
application  to  their  objects  and  their  full  develop- 
ment. 

Private  ownership  of  the  means  of  production, 
which  was  formerly  the  means  of  securing  to  the 
producer  the  ownership  of  his  product,  has  to-day 
become  the  means  of  expropriating  peasants,  man- 
ual workers,  and  small  traders,  and  enabling  the 
non-workers  —  capitalists  and  large  landowners  — 
to  own  the  product  of  the  workers.  Only  the 
transformation  of  capitalistic  private  ownership  of 


328  Applied  Socialism 

the  means  of  production  —  the  soil,  mines,  raw 
materials,  tools,  machines,  and  means  of  trans- 
port —  into  social  ownership,  and  the  transforma- 
tion of  production  of  goods  for  sale  into  Socialistic 
production  managed  for  and  through  society,  can 
bring  it  about,  that  the  great  industry  and  the 
steadily  growing  productive  capacity  of  social  labor 
shall  for  the  hitherto  exploited  classes  be  changed 
from  a  source  of  misery  and  oppression  to  a  source 
of  the  highest  welfare  and  of  all-round  harmonious 
perfection. 

This  social  transformation  means  the  emancipa- 
tion not  only  of  the  proletariat,  but  of  the  whole 
human  race  which  suffers  under  the  conditions  of 
to-day.  But  it  can  only  be  the  work  of  the  work- 
ing class,  because  all  the  other  classes,  in  spite  of 
mutually  conflicting  interests,  take  their  stand  on 
the  basis  of  private  ownership  of  the  means  of  pro- 
duction, and  have  as  their  common  object  the 
preservation  of  the  principles  of  contemporary 
society. 

The  battle  of  the  working  class  against  capital- 
istic exploitation  is  necessarily  a  political  battle. 
The  working  class  cannot  carry  on  its  economic  bat- 
tles or  develop  its  economic  organization  without 
political  rights.  It  cannot  effect  the  passing  of  the 
means  of  production  into  the  ownership  of  the  com- 
munity without  acquiring  political  power. 

To  shape  this  battle  of  the  working  class  into  a 


Appendix  329 

conscious  and  united  effort,  and  to  show  Its  nat- 
urally necessary  end,  is  the  object  of  the  Social 
Democratic  party. 

The  interests  of  the  working  class  are  the  same 
in  all  lands  with  capitalistic  methods  of  production. 
With  the  expansion  of  world  transport  and  pro- 
duction for  the  world  market  the  state  of  the 
workers  in  any  one  country  becomes  constantly 
more  dependent  on  the  state  of  the  workers  in 
other  countries.  The  emancipation  of  the  work- 
ing class  is  thus  a  task  in  which  the  workers  of  all 
civilized  countries  are  concerned  in  a  like  degree. 
Conscious  of  this,  the  Social  Democratic  party  of 
Germany  feels  and  declares  itself  one  with  the 
class-conscious  workers  of  all  other  lands. 

The  Social  Democratic  party  of  Germany  fights 
thus  not  for  new  class  privileges  and  exceptional 
rights,  but  for  the  abolition  of  class  domination  and 
of  the  classes  themselves,  and  for  the  equal  rights 
and  equal  obligations  of  all,  without  distinction  of 
sex  and  parentage.  Setting  out  from  these  views, 
it  combats  in  contemporary  society  not  merely  the 
exploitation  and  oppression  of  the  wage-workers, 
but  of  every  kind  of  exploitation  and  oppression, 
whether  directed  against  a  class,  a  party,  a  sex, 
or  a  race. 

Setting  out  from  these  principles,  the  Social 
Democratic  party  of  Germany  demands  immedi- 
ately : 


330  Applied  Socialism 

1.  Universal  equal  direct  suffrage  and  franchise, 
with  direct  ballot,  for  all  members  of  the  Empire 
over  twenty  years  of  age,  without  distinction  of 
sex,  for  all  elections  and  acts  of  voting.  Propor- 
tional representation;  and  until  this  is  introduced, 
redivision  of  the  constituencies  by  law  according  to 
the  numbers  of  population.  A  new  Legislature 
every  two  years.  Fixing  of  elections  and  acts  of 
voting  for  a  legal  holiday.  Indemnity  for  the 
elected  representatives.  Removal  of  every  cur- 
tailment of  political  rights  except  in  case  of 
tutelage. 

2.  Direct  legislation  by  the  people  by  means  of 
the  initiative  and  referendum.  Self-determination 
and  self-government  of  the  people  in  empire,  state, 
province,  and  commune.  Authorities  to  be  elected 
by  the  people ;  to  be  responsible  and  bound.  Taxes 
to  be  voted  annually. 

3.  Education  of  all  to  be  capable  of  bearing 
arms.  Armed  nation  Instead  of  standing  army. 
Decision  of  war  and  peace  by  the  representatives 
of  the  people.  Settlement  of  all  International  dis- 
putes by  the  method  of  arbitration. 

4.  Abolition  of  all  laws  which  curtail  or  sup- 
press the  free  expression  of  opinion  and  the  right 
of  association  and  assembly. 

5.  Abolition  of  all  laws  which  are  prejudicial  to 
women  in  their  relations  to  men  In  public  or  private 
law. 


Appendix  331 

6.  Declaration  that  religion  is  a  private  matter. 
Abolition  of  all  contributions  from  public  funds  to 
ecclesiastical  and  religious  objects.  Ecclesiastical 
and  religious  bodies  are  to  be  treated  as  private 
associations,  which  manage  their  affairs  quite  Inde- 
pendently. 

7.  Secularization  of  education.  Compulsory 
attendance  of  public  primary  schools.  No  charges 
to  be  made  for  instruction,  school  requisites,  and 
maintenance,  in  the  public  primary  schools;  nor  in 
the  higher  educational  institutions  for  those  stu- 
dents, male  or  female,  who  in  virtue  of  their  capaci- 
ties are  considered  fit  for  further  training. 

8.  No  charges  to  be  made  for  the  administration 
of  the  law,  or  for  legal  assistance.  Judgment  by 
popularly  elected  judges.  Appeal  in  criminal 
cases.  Indemnification  of  innocent  persons  prose- 
cuted, arrested,  or  condemned.  Abolition  of  the 
death  penalty. 

9.  No  charges  to  be  made  for  medical  attend- 
ance, including  midwifery  and  medicine.  No 
charges  to  be  made  for  death  certificates. 

10.  Graduated  taxes  on  income  and  property  to 
meet  all  public  expenses  as  far  as  these  are  to  be 
covered  by  taxation.  Obligatory  self-assessment. 
A  tax  on  Inheritance,  graduated  according  to  the 
size  of  the  Inheritance  and  the  degree  of  kinship. 
Abolition  of  all  Indirect  taxes,  customs,  and  other 
politico-economic  measures  which  sacrifice  the  inter- 


332  Applied  Socialism 

ests  of  the  whole  community  to  the  Interests  of  a 
favored  minority. 

For  the  protection  of  the  working  class  the 
Social  Democratic  party  of  Germany  demands 
immediately: 

1.  An  effective  national  and  international  legis- 
lation for  the  protection  of  workmen  on  the  fol- 
lowing basis: 

(a)  Fixing  of  a  normal  working  day  with  a 
maximum  of  eight  hours. 

(b)  Prohibition  of  industrial  work  for  children 
under  fourteen  years. 

(c)  Prohibition  of  night  work,  except  for  such 
branches  of  industry  as,  in  accordance  with  their 
nature,  require  night  work,  for  technical  reasons, 
or  reasons  of  public  welfare. 

(d)  An  uninterrupted  rest  of  at  least  thirty-six 
hours  in  every  week  for  every  worker. 

(e)  Prohibition  of  the  truck  system. 

2.  Inspection  of  all  industrial  businesses,  Inves- 
tigation and  regulation  of  labor  relations  In  town 
and  country  by  an  Imperial  Department  of  Labor, 
district  labor  departments,  and  chambers  of  labor. 
Thorough  industrial  hygiene. 

3.  Legal  equalization  of  agricultural  laborers 
and  domestic  servants  with  industrial  workers; 
removal  of  the  special  regulations  affecting  serv- 
ants. 

4.  Assurance  of  the  right  of  combination. 


Appendix  333 

5.  Workmen's  Insurance  to  be  taken  over  bodily 
by  the  Empire;  and  the  workers  to  have  an  influ- 
ential share  In  Its  administration. 

6.  Separation  of  the  Church  and  State. 

(a)  Suppression  of  the  grant  for  public  wor- 
ship. 

(b)  Philosophic  or  religious  associations  to  be 
civil  persons  at  law. 

7.  Revisions  of  sections  in  the  Civil  Code  con- 
cerning marriage  and  the  paternal  authority. 

(a)  Civil  equality  of  the  sexes,  and  of  children, 
whether  natural  or  legitimate. 

(b)  Revision  of  the  divorce  laws,  maintaining 
the  husband's  liability  to  support  the  wife  or  the 
children. 

(c)  Inquiry  Into  paternity  to  be  legalized. 

(d)  Protective  measures  In  favor  of  children 
materially  or  morally  abandoned. 


THE   END 


mmw^    %e 


>v 


J(^ 


^om 


•:5. 


i  I 


L  007  228  246  0 


%m 


5    I 


mi 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  i  Am  ITY 

"""  llllil  llilMI   n  (i|N|i|i|ii!|i||iii 


lliilllllillll 

AA    000  649  067    6  RY, 


>ii 


